AYAZ ALI and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by the accused applicants in respect of Crime No. 6 of 2000 registered at Police Station Airport Larkana. The core legal question revolves around whether the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report and recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 creates sufficient reasonable grounds to warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that the considerable and unexplained delay in initiating criminal proceedings and recording witness statements casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case, thereby creating reasonable suspicion that entitles the accused to anticipatory relief. The court laid down the principle that unexplained investigative delays strongly support the concession of pre-arrest bail by undermining the immediate credibility of the prosecution evidence.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Whether delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 casts doubt on the prosecution case?
- When is an accused entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail based on investigative lapses?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Accused/applicants seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No,6 of 2000 registered at Police Station Airport Larkana.
2. Prosecution case is that complainant Naveed Ahmed used to reside in village Wakro and he runs a Kiryana shop adjacent to his house. On 16-2-2000 after closing the door of his shop he slept in his house. It is alleged that at about 3-00 a.m. (17-3-2000) he heard disturbance inside the shop whereupon he and his brother. Khalid Hussain woke up. In the bulb light the complainant party identified Ayaz Ali and Yasin both by caste Jessar carrying guns and Muhammad Hassan, Ghulam Sarwar and Muhammad Akram having Lathis. The accused were leaving the shop at that time after stealing the articles from the shop. Complainant raised cries which attracted P.W. Beg Muhammad, a watch-man. It is further alleged that accused persons 'fled away from the scene alongwith the property and the weapons. After return to the shop and on verification, it was found that a deck of National Company worth Rs,2,000 electrical material valued Rs,1,000 and other articles worth Rs,12,000 were stolen. Pre-arrest bail application on behalf of accused/applicants was filed before the learned Sessions Judge which was transferred to First Additional Sessions Judge and the same was rejected on 18-2-2000, hence this application.
3. Mr. Jessar contends that the case against the accused/applicants is result of enmity and is false one. He further, submits that incident is alleged to have taken place on 17-2-2000 whereas F.I.R.
4. Was lodged on 20-2-2000 and strangely enough 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of witnesses were recorded on 10th March, 2000. According to him the applicants are respectable citizens and if they are arrested, they will be humiliated, tortured and insulted by the police.
5. Learned Additional Advocate-General contends that names of the accused/applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. And he opposes the grant of bail.
6. I have gone through the material placed with the case. It is very strange that the incident has reportedly taken place on 17-2-2000 but the F.I.R. Was filed belatedly on 20-2-2000 whereas the 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the witnesses were recorded by the police on 10-3-2000 with a considerable delay without any explanation forthcoming from the prosecution side. The delay so occasioned by the police in discharging their duties casts serious doubts on the veracity of the prosecution evidence. At any rate the above factors create reasonable suspicion which entitles the accused to the concession of pre-arrest bail. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I feel that a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
7. Consequently, the application is allowed. The accused/applicants are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. They are directed to join police in the investigation.
Cited by 2 cases
- ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus State 2021 PCrLJN 60
- DOST MUHAMMAD and anothers vs THE STATE 2001 P Cr. L J 1697