GHULAM NABI vs THE STATE
This judgment concerns an application for pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, involving allegations of misappropriation and defalcation of stock by a Sub Sale Inspector. The core legal question revolved around whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant committed the offence, particularly in light of a significant and unexplained delay of over two years in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) after the alleged incident. The court held that the considerable delay in lodging the FIR, which was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution, rendered the FIR prima facie mala fide and raised the possibility of evidence tampering. Consequently, the court found the case to be one of further inquiry, a ground for granting pre-arrest bail. The application for pre-arrest bail was granted.
- Can an unexplained and considerable delay in lodging an FIR render the FIR mala fide?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted where there is a possibility of evidence tampering due to delayed FIR?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
' The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No,13 of 2000 registered at Police Station ACE, Shikarpur of offences under section 409, P.P.C. Read with 5(2) Act II of 1947.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that applicant was Sub Sale Inspector in SASO at Modeji Depot, District Shikarpur and he was said to have committed misappropriation and defalcation of SASO stock and on his handing over charge to Liaquat Ali Siyal on 10-1-1998 it was found that he had misappropriated stock to the tune of Rs,7,75,250 out of which he has deposited from 19-1-1998 to 23-3-1998 to the extent of Rs,2,45,112 and still an amount of Rs,5,30,138 was outstanding against the applicant having been misappropriated by him.
3. A bail application was moved before Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Larkana for grant of pre- arrest bail. Initially interim bail was granted but subsequently the same was not confirmed, hence this bail application.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for applicant and learned Assistant Advocate-General at length. It is contended by the counsel for applicant that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has committed the offence as alleged against him because the applicant remained Incharge of Sub Sale Depot Madeji from 29-5-1994 but as per F.I.R. The alleged offence was disclosed on 10-1-1998 whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged on 8-5-2000 as such there is considerable delay in the lodging of F.I.R. He has further contended that the F.I.R. Is silent about the specific date and month when the offence was committed by the applicant and there is no direct evidence connecting the applicant with the same or that the applicant taken out any article of subject-matter of alleged misappropriation of theft from the godown therefore, the case is of further enquiry. He has further asserted that predecessor of complainant used to visit and check the staff available with the applicant every fifteen days under the instructions of Managing Director and have never reported any shortage during the period when applicant was incharge.
5. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to applicant.
6. It is an admitted position that the incident alleged against the applicant was of the year 1998 and F.I.R. Of such incident was lodged on 8-5-2000 which on the face of it appears to be mala fide.
The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. There is every possibility that during this period the evidence may be tampered or exploited by the prosecution. In view of the contentions raised by the counsel for applicant the case appears to be of further enquiry.
' I vide my short order dated, 7-11-2001 had granted bail to the applicant and the forgoing are the reasons for the same.
Cited by 1 case
- Police Constable ABDUL RAHIM Versus State 2016 PCrLJN 39