GHULAM MURTAZA And Another vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 394 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar, Shujabad, District Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in lodging the FIR, previous criminal litigation between the parties, suspicious recovery circumstances, and the duration of their incarceration. The court held that the thirty-hour delay in lodging the FIR was not sufficiently explained, the injuries were not life-threatening, the recovery of the motorcycle was questionable, and the petitioners had already been behind bars for ten months despite the commencement of the trial. The court consequently granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., coupled with previous enmity and prolonged incarceration, establishes a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the mere commencement of a trial does not preclude the grant of bail.
- Does an unexplained delay of thirty hours in lodging the F.I.R. justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the mere commencement of a trial preclude the grant of post-arrest bail to an accused who has been incarcerated for ten months?
- Can previous criminal litigation between parties be considered a ground for roping accused persons into a criminal case for the purpose of bail?
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioners through the present petition have sought post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 224 of 1999 dated 18-6-1999 under sections 394/411, P.P.C. At Police Station Sadar, Shujabad, District Multan.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and the complainant at length and perused the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that there is previous criminal litigation between the parties. He stated that the occurrence, alleged in the F.I.R., took place on 17-6-1999 at. 6-00 a.m. While the F.I.R. Was lodged on 18-6-1999 at 12-35 p.m.
The explanation given for this delay is that the complainant's brother had been taken to Nishtar Hospital, Multan. This does not sufficiently explain the delay of thirty hours, particularly, in view of the fact that the two injuries, allegedly suffered by the brother of the complainant, were not life threatening or serious enough to justify the delay.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners next pointed out that even the Motor-cycle, allegedly taken from the petitioner's brother, was recovered on the pointation of the complainant Dr. A.I Shah.
Furthermore, the two injuries, one on the right knee and the other on the left knee of Zakir A.I E Shah, have been attributed respectively to the two petitioners. Learned counsel further contends that the two petitioners have been roped into the case on the basis of the previous enmity which has been reflected in three I criminal cases, two of which were lodged against the complainant party in the present case while one was lodged by the said party against the accused party.
4. Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant while opposing the bail have stated that the trial has commenced although no evidence as yet has been recorded in the case. They, therefore, argued that the petitioners should not be allowed bail in the circumstances. I note that the petitioners have been behind bars for the past ten months. The mere fact that the trial has commenced, does not preclude the grant of bail.
5. The foregoing discussion shows that the petitioners are entitled to the grant of bail. They are, therefore, allowed bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like, amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.