MUHAMMAD YASEEN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under FIR No. 464 dated 13-9-1998 at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal, for attempting to commit rape. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail considering the delay in lodging the FIR, the nature of the allegations, and the completion of the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry, noting an unexplained delay in reporting the crime, the fact that an eye-witness did not support the prosecution version via affidavit, and that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over ten months with no further requirement for police investigation. The court admitted the petitioner to bail, laying down the principle that where investigation is complete, the accused is no longer required for investigative purposes, and circumstances such as delay and lack of corroboration support the grant of bail pending trial.
- Whether an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR constitutes a ground for grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required by the police?
- Whether contradictory statements or lack of support by a listed witness in an affidavit warrant the concession of bail?
ORDER
' The petitioner is accused of attempting to commit rape one Mst. Noor Bibi, vide F.I.R. No,464, dated 13-9-1998 registered at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal. Successive bail applications filed by the petitioner have been dismissed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there is an unexplained delay of three days in the lodging of the F.I.R., and the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R., is also not convincing. The petitioner is confined in the judicial lock-up for the last more than ten months. The case is stated to have been fabricated out of enmity and for ulterior motive. Learned counsel further contends that Khuda Bakhsh one of the persons named as witnesses in the F.I.R., is not supporting the prosecution story and a certified copy of his affidavit has been placed on the record. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
3. I have gone through the records. Prima facie the contention of the learned counsel' for the petitioner are borne out from the same. The investigation is complete and the person of the petitioner is not required by the police for any purpose. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention to the cases of Muhammad Iqbal and another v. The State (1984 PCr.LJ 2445), Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Yar and another (1984 SCM R 1067) and Muhammad Yunus v.
The State (1989 PCr.LJ 799), where in the similar circumstances the accused persons were admitted to bail. In this view of the matter, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Judicial Magistrate concerned.