GHULAM FAREED NINDWANI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Ghulam Fareed Nindwani, who was accused of theft and assault. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the duration of the applicant's pre-trial detention. The court observed that there was an unexplained 20-day delay in reporting the incident, despite the complainant knowing the applicant, and noted the absence of medical evidence regarding the alleged injury sustained by the victim. The court held that these factors, combined with the applicant's prolonged incarceration of over one year and seven months, rendered the applicant's guilt a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted bail, establishing the principle that an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an F.I.R., coupled with a lack of corroborative medical evidence and extended pre-trial custody, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can prolonged pre-trial detention justify the grant of bail?
- Is the absence of medical evidence regarding an alleged injury a relevant factor in determining bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. It is alleged that on the night between 7th and 8th of June, 2000 at 1-00 a.m. Complainant Muhammad Sharif, his brother Lal Muhammad and nephew Arz Muhammad woke up on barking of dogs and in the electric light saw thieves including applicant Ghulam Fareed Nindwani, who was armed with Lathi and others armed with guns and K. Ks, who were untethering their bullock. They raised alarms and Lal Muhammad grappled with the culprits. He was given Lathi blow by Ghulam Fareed which hit him on his leg. The other culprits made fires in air from their guns and K.Ks., and went away.. The incident was reported to Police Station Bahu Khoso after 20 days i,e, on 28-6-2000.
2. The applicant was arrested on 25-9-2000. Learned counsel for-the applicant submitted that there is inordinate delay of 20 days in lodging the report with police for which there is absolutely no explanation in the F.I.R. Learned State Counsel admits that the F.I.R. Is silent about this delay. Mr.Soomro further contended that applicant has completed a period of more than one year in continuous detention much before omission of 3rd and 4th provisos to section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. The State Counsel on being asked in this behalf was not able to find out any material on record to suggest that Lal Muhammad was referred to concerned Medical Officer for examination or treatment although this was an important part of evidence but the same is missing and no explanation can be gathered from police papers. The delay in lodging the F.I.R has gone totally unexplained, although the applicant was known to the complainant party. These circumstances tend to show that the guilt of applicant requires further enquiry. Besides, the applicant has also remained in custody for a period of one year-and 7 months. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Applicant be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 and executing P.R.
4. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.