MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Aslam and two others in respect of case F.I.R. No. 45 of 2002 registered under sections 392, 395, 458 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Delhi Gate, Multan. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail, particularly in light of an alleged delayed F.I.R., matrimonial disputes, and a plea of juvenile age raised for one of the co-accused. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that prima facie there are reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners committed the charged offences which fall within the prohibitory clause, and that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the age plea regarding the juvenile accused required deeper assessment at trial rather than at the bail stage. The key principle laid down is that where offences fall within the prohibitory clause and reasonable grounds exist connecting the accused to the crime, bail is not to be granted lightly, and documentary age proofs can be prima facie evaluated against physical appearance during bail hearings.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when charged with offences falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the plea of minority based on a school certificate be discarded at the bail stage based on the physical appearance of the accused?
- Does a delay in reporting an occurrence in the F.I.R. necessarily warrant the grant of bail to the accused?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Shahid seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,45 of 2002 registered at Police Station Delhi Gate, Multan under sections 392, 395, 458 and 412, P.P.C.
2. The occurrence allegedly took place on 17-4-2002 at 8-45 p.m. It was reported to the police on 21-4-2002. According to the F.I.R., the present petitioners accompanied by Muhammad Aslam son of Abdul Haq, co-accused armed with pistol, Churri and dagger entered the house of Naseer Ahmad (complainant) at about 8-45 p.m. While their co-accused Muhammad Ismail remained on guard in the street. The accused bolted the house from inside. Muhammad Aslam put his pistol on the temple of Mst. Sakina, while Shahid accused threatened the wife and son of Naseer Ahmad (complainant) with a dagger. Muhammad Rafique accused allegedly went inside the room and brought Rs,15,800 after having broken a box. On the arrival of the P. Ws. The accused decamped.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case against the accused has been falsely implicated with an ulterior motive. He pleaded that Mst. Errum Shahzadi the niece of the complainant is married to Muhammad Aslam petitioner and the complainant wants the said Muhammad Aslam accused to divorce his wife. It is further argued that Muhammad Shahid accused, according to the school certificate, is 15 years of age, as such he is entitled to the concession of bail under the proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. I have considered the arguments and have perused the record. In view of the fact that the accused are related to the complainant, the explanation offered by the complainant does not appear to be unreasonable. Had the F.I.R. Not been a mere concoction it was not difficult for the complainant to show the registration of the case with promptness. Muhammad Shahid accused has been produced in the Court pursuant to a direction. He is a tall young boy with not less than 5'-6" height. The age of the accused recorded in the school certificate does not appear to be correct. This observation shall not be used for any other purpose. Prima facie, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have committed the offences with which they have been charged fall within the prohibitory clause. Therefore, I do not consider it proper to release the petitioners on bail. This petition is dismissed.