ALI GUL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused in a criminal case involving allegations of kidnapping. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with others, kidnapped the complainant and his father on 15-7-2001 due to a marriage dispute, subsequently demanding ransom for the father's release. The applicant sought bail on the grounds of a significant, unexplained nine-month delay in lodging the FIR and material contradictions in the complainant's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the complainant altered his account of how he learned of the kidnapping. The State did not oppose the bail application. The Court held that the unexplained delay in the FIR and the inconsistency in the complainant's statements rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, subject to the furnishing of a surety bond. The judgment reinforces the principle that unexplained, substantial delays in FIR registration and material contradictions in witness statements are valid grounds for granting bail pending trial.
- Does an unexplained nine-month delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can material contradictions in a complainant's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the grant of bail?
- Is a case involving Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered a case of further inquiry when the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Briefly stated the case of the prosecution per F.I.R. Is that on the day of occurrence viz. 15-7-2001 at 20-00 hours, six accused including the applicant appeared in two cars and kidnapped Abdul Khaliq, the complainant as well as his father Daim Deen due to marriage dispute. Thereafter, Abdul Khaliq was released whereas Daim Deen was held hostage and an amount of Rs,3,00,000 was demanded for his freedom.
2. ' In support of the bail application learned counsel has submitted that admittedly the complaint was filed on 4-5-2002 regarding the incident which is alleged to have been taken place on 15-7- 2001 viz. After about a delay of nine months, which has not been satisfactorily explained to date by the prosecution. He has next submitted that in his police statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., the complainant has totally changed his story as he has now alleged that the fact of his father's kidnapping was made known to him 'through some one else. In the circumstances, per learned counsel, this becomes a case of further enquiry particularly as the prohibitory clause is not attracted since the accused have been challaned under section 365, P.P.C.
3. ' Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Fazlur Rehman, does not oppose the request for grant of bail application.
4. ' I have heard both the learned counsel. In my opinion this is a case of further enquiry as admittedly the complainant has been lodged after a delay of nine months which has not so far been explained. Secondly, the complainant himself has changed his story in his police statement.
5. Consequently, 1 would grant bail to the applicant provided he submits surety in the amount of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Bail application is disposed of.