ABDUL BARI SHAIKH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under sections 324, 504, 34, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the significant delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the unexplained delay in naming the applicant, who was initially identified only as an unidentified person, in the victim's statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the victim had previously given a statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without implicating the applicant, despite the applicant being a co-villager. Furthermore, the Court noted that the role attributed to the applicant was merely one of instigation, while actual injuries were inflicted by co-accused. Finding that the case required further inquiry and noting the State's concession, the Court granted bail. The principle laid down is that unexplained, significant delays in implicating an accused, particularly when inconsistent with earlier statements, justify the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does an unexplained delay in naming an accused in a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is bail appropriate where the accused is alleged only to have instigated the crime while others inflicted the injuries?
- Does the failure to name an accused in an earlier statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle the accused to bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant has been arrested in a case registered at Police Station Tando Muhammad Khan, for an offence punishable under sections 324 and 504 read with 34 and 114, P.P.C.
2. ' The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. Are that Abid Gul the injured/victim in this case had given a friendly loan of Rs,2,000 to one Victor. On the day of incident at 10-00 a.m. Abid Gul as per undertaking of Victor went to Tando Muhammad Khan Railway Station at 10-00 p.m. Where the amount was to be paid to him. At 11-30 p.m. Complainant Gul Hassan's brother Siddik informed the complainant that he was standing at Tando Muhammad Khan Railway Station when Abid Gul reached there and in the meantime at 10- 30 p.m. Victor accompanied by his son Bobi alias Rictor and an unidentified person appeared armed with hatchets and on the instigation of the said unidentified person Victor and his son inflicted hatchet belows upon Abid Gul who fell down on receiving injuries. The complainant rushed to the place of incident and removed his son to Police Station and after obtaining a letter from Police, shifted him to Taluka Hospital Tando Muhammad Khan.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 9- 2-2001 at 10-30 p.m. And the victim was first removed to Police Station -yet the F.I.R. Was lodged on 12-2-2001 i,e, after 3 days and no explanation has been offered for this delay. He submitted that the applicant has been involved in this case at a very late stage when the statement of victim, which was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 13-3-2001 and contended that earlier on 12-2-2001 statement of victim was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Wherein he did not involve the applicant although the applicant is admittedly a co-villager of the victim and complainant. He argued that the case of applicant requires further inquiry. In support of his contention he relied on 1996 SCM R 1654.
4. ' Mr. Ansari learned State counsel frankly conceded that apparently there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. And the name of the applicant has not been mentioned in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. But he has been implicated at a very late stage.
5. In the F.I.R. The applicant is said to be an unidentified person but he has been implicated in the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Of victim which was recorded after one month and four days of the occurrence although the victim remained in Hospital only for four days. Even otherwise there is nothing on record to indicate that the victim was not capable of speaking during the days he was admitted as indoor patient. The delay in recording the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Is not explained. Moreover, in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. The victim remained silent and did not state anything about the identity of the unidentified assailant. Nevertheless, the role assigned to the applicant is that of instigation and the actual injuries are attributed to the co- accused.
6. ' The principle laid down in 1996 SCM R 1654, Muhammad Sadiq and another v. The State fully supports the bail plea. The learned State counsel also does not oppose the bail. The bail plea is accordingly accepted and the application is allowed. The applicant may be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and executing P.R. Bond it the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.