KHURRAM MASIH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Khurram Masih, who was implicated in a case involving arson (Section 436/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860) following a fire at a factory godown. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the investigation. The complainant had lodged an FIR against unknown persons, and the applicant was later identified as a co-accused. The defense argued that the applicant was not named in the FIR, that there was a significant delay in lodging the FIR, and that the prosecution witnesses were examined by the police several weeks after the incident. The Court held that while the delay in lodging the FIR might not be fatal when the accused is initially unknown, the unexplained delay in recording witness statements favored the applicant. Consequently, the Court found that there was scope for further inquiry into the applicant's guilt under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and granted bail, noting the applicant's prolonged custody and the completion of the investigation.
- Does a delay in recording witness statements by the police provide grounds for the grant of bail?
- Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case when the accused is not named in the FIR?
- When does a case fall under the category of further inquiry for the purpose of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. The applicant seeks bail in a case under section 436/34, P.P.C. (F.I.R. No,35 of 2003 of Police Station SITE), pending trial before the Court of learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West. The facts, per F.I.R. Lodged on 8-2-2003 at 1900 hours by the complainant Abdul Subhan, reveal that he is a Director in the Qaim Auto Motor Manufacturing (Pvt.) Ltd, Karachi and is performing his duties there since 8/9 years. On 6-2-2003, at about 9-30 a.m. While he was on the way to his factory, he received information, on his Mobile Phone from the incharge Ayub Channa, that fire was caused in the Godown at 3rd Floor of the building. Ayub Channa was instructed to call Fire. Brigade.
2. Upon reaching the factory within 20/25 minutes, the complainant Abdul Subhan found the Fire Brigade Staff busy in extinguishing the fire, which came under control only at about 6-00 in the evening. As per report almost entire material kept at 3rd Floor had turned into ashes causing huge loss. The complainant in the FIR suspected some foul play on the part of some unknown persons. The police after recording of the FIR conducted investigation, recorded the statement of P.Ws namely Azam, Altaf Hussain and Meer Abdullah and consequently submitted challan in Court showing the present applicant Khurram and two others namely Manzoor Masih and Michael Masih as co-accused in custody. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that his name does not appear in the F.I.R. And he is not alleged to have been seen possessing a match or a matchstick. It is further argued that the above named P.Ws were examined after several weeks. It was also argued that the FIR was delayed by about three days and there is no explanation for such delay. Ms. Akhtar Rehana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the bail application has stated that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Would not be material as the names of the accused persons are not mentioned in the F.I.R.
3. It is true that when the names of the accused persons are not mentioned in the FIR, the delay in lodging of the FIR may not always be fatal to the prosecution. The point of delay in the examination of P.Ws by several weeks, however, goes in favour of the applicant. P.W Azam is stated to have been examined by police on 3-4-2003 and the rest of the P. Ws on 29-3-2003. The applicant has remained in custody for nearly 10 months and he is no more required for the purpose of investigation. In view of the aforesaid reasons, there appears a scope for further enquiry into the guilt of the applicant, as envisaged under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The applicant has made out a case for bail, the bail is accordingly granted subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac only) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL WADOOD vs The STATE 2017 YLR 2310