GHIYAS vs STATE
This matter arises from a petition filed by Ghiyas seeking post-arrest bail in connection with case F.I.R. No. 183 registered at Police Station Saddar, Arifwala, for offences under sections 302, 364, 365, 148, 149, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the presence of mere suspicion, the rule of consistency with co-accused who were already granted bail, and the debatable nature of the recovery of the deceased's bicycle without an identification memo. The court held that the case against the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allowing the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where an accused has spent a considerable period in custody, the investigation is complete, co-accused facing similar or graver imputations have been granted bail, and the evidentiary value of a recovery is doubtful at the bail stage, further inquiry into the guilt of the accused is warranted.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the F.I.R. is lodged with a considerable delay and expresses mere suspicion against the accused?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been admitted to bail?
- Can a disputed recovery of a deceased person's property without an identification memo defeat the right to bail at the pre-trial stage?
- Does the completion of investigation and prolonged incarceration make out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Ghiyas petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,183 registered at Police Station Saddar, Arifwala, District, Pakpattan Sharif on 17-4-2000 for offences under sections 302/364/365/148/149/201, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a delay of 24/25 days and it has been mentioned in the F.I.R. That Muhammad Imran deceased had been seen standing with the present petitioner outside the house of the petitioner's father namely Faqir Muhammad before the deceased's disappearance. It has further been noticed that in the F.I.R. The complainant had expressed a suspicion only against the petitioner's co-accused and not against the petitioner himself. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner's co-accused namely Muhammad Ashraf, Faqir Muhammad and Riaz Ahmed. Fauji have already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court vide order, dated 14-11-2000 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,2589-B of 2000 and order, dated 6-12-2000 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,2537-B of 2000. The only distinguishing feature of the petitioner's case from that of his abovementioned co-accused highlighted by the learned counsel for the State has been that allegedly a bicycle of the deceased had been recovered during the investigation of this case upon pointing out of the present petitioner.
However, in this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently maintained that there is no memo. Of identification of the said bicycle available on the record of investigation and, therefore, it cannot be presumed at this stage that the bicycle allegedly recovered at the pointing out of the present petitioner was in fact a bicycle of the deceased and not of anybody else. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Allah Ditta v. The State (1977 SCM R 251) and Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1977 SCM R 457). It has also been noticed by this Court that the present petitioner has already spent about one year and eight months in jail in connection with this case. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner is no longer required for the purposes of investigation.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petition is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.