ABDUL BARI SHAIKH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Bari Shaikh, who was implicated in a criminal case registered at Police Station Tando Mohammad Khan for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.), the unexplained delay in recording the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the fact that the applicant was not named in the initial statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicant's case warranted further inquiry, noting that the applicant was initially described as an unidentified person and was only implicated later. The Court observed that the victim's silence regarding the applicant's identity in the earlier statement and the lack of explanation for the delay in the subsequent statement undermined the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that unexplained delays in the registration of an F.I.R. and the identification of an accused in subsequent statements provide sufficient grounds for the grant of bail pending further inquiry.
- Does an unexplained delay in recording a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for the grant of bail?
- Is bail appropriate when an accused is not named in the initial statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to explain a significant delay in lodging an F.I.R. entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Section 328, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
WAHID BUX BROHI, J.- Mr. Anwar Ansari, Advocate for State.
The applicant has been arrested in a case registered at Police Station Tando Mohammad Khan, for an offence punishable under Sections 328 and 504 read with 34 and 114, PPC.
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.2000/- to one Victor. On the day of incident at 10-00 a.m. Abid Gul as per undertaking of Victor went to Tando Mohammad Khan Railway Station at 10-00 p.m. (sic) 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 Mohammad Khan Railway Station when Abid Gul reached there and in the meantime at 10-30 p.m. Victor accompanied by his son Robi 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 blows 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 Mohammad 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 with the statement of victim, which was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C, on 13.3.2001 and when heard 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 inquires further inquiry, ln support of his contention he relied on 1996 S.C.M.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. ln the F.I.R, the applicant is said to be an unidentified person but he has been complicated 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 S.C.M.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 in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.