ABDUL HAKEEM alias SHADA vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 382 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Fareed Nagar, Pakpattan Sharif. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to bail considering the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, the completion of investigation, and the absence of prior convictions or pending criminal cases. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner's guilt called for further inquiry under the circumstances. The key principle laid down is that where an investigation is complete, the accused is not required for further investigation, and there is a considerable delay in reporting the matter coupled with the lack of previous convictions, the case falls within the purview of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does a delay of one and a half months in lodging the FIR make the petitioner's guilt one of further inquiry?
- Whether completion of investigation and non-requirement of the accused for further investigation justify the grant of bail?
- Is a previous non-convict with no pending criminal cases entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497-like considerations?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.1.R. No,18 of 2001, dated 13-2-2001 under sections 411/382, P . P .0 . Police Station Fareed Nagar, Pakpattan Sharif .
2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. Is that complainant is Hafiz-e-Qun, that on the fateful day and time Shahbaz son of the petitioner came to his shop and told him that he was being called by his father when he went to the latter's house petitioner flared up and exhorted that the complainant was a dacoit and that he had attempted to commit sodomy with Shahbaz thereafter petitioner allegedly slapped the complainant and at pistol point robbed him of Rs,8,000 and when the complainant was coming back he returned Rs,1,000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that there is a delay of 1-1/2 months in lodging the F.I.R., that there is no witness of the occurrence, that investigation is complete and petitioner is no more required for further investigation.
4. Petition is opposed by learned counsel for the complainant as also for the State on the grounds that the petitioner is a blackmailer, that there is an evidence to the effect that he has been indulging in similar incidents, that lie got a 1aise case registered vide F.I.R. No,14 of 2001 Police Station Farid To .Vn four days prior to the lodging of this F.I.R wherein he alleged that the accused mentioned therein had attempted to commit sodomy with petitioner's son.
5. Heard.
6. There is a delay of 1-1/2 months in lodging the F.I.R., the only explanation given for the delay is that complainant did not report the matter so that ht. Should not get bad name, the investigation is complete and petitioner is no more required for further investigation. He is a previous non-convict and there is no criminal case pending against him. In these circumstances the question of petitioner's guilt would require further inquiry. Resultantly this petition is allowed and subject to petitioner's furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court he shall be released.