1990 PLP 148 (MLD)

(i) That the local police had found the petitioner innocent after an investigation. And that even the D.S.P., Bahawalpur had come to the conclusion that the involvement of the petitioner in the crime alleged was extremely doubtful, after the case had been transferred to him, (ii) That the injured P.W. namely Mst. Maqboolan Bibi does not implicate the petitioner/accused as a culprit in her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., (iii) That there was a delay of 8 days in lodging of the F.I.R. without any reasonable explanation coming forth for the same, (iv) That no motive had been attributed to the petitioner/accused for the commission of such a serious crime, (v) That the alleged occurrence having taken place at dead of night, the possibility of same being an unseen occurrence could not be ruled out, especially in view of the extraordinary delay in reporting the alleged occurrence, (vi) That the petitioner is less than 15 years of age and, therefore, was entitled to bail, and (vii) Lastly it was contended that as the trial had commenced, therefore, the bail granted to the petitioner should not have been cancelled in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon: (a) Ghulam Muhammad and others v State 1986 PCr. LJ 1402.‑‑Wherein the accused charged with section 302, P.P.C. was granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that the accused had been found innocent by the Police, (b) Mst. Irshad Begum v Muhammad Afzal and others 1985 S C M R 1691.‑‑Herein the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner/accused of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. on the ground that the trial was to commence shortly. (c) Akmal Masih and others v Salamat Masih and 4 other 1988 S C M R 918.‑‑In this case the Supreme Court declined to recall order allowing bail with the observation that trial Court would be at liberty to cancel bail if on recording evidence incriminating material was brought against any of the accused on bail charged under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. (d) Umar Hayat and others v State 1987 PCr. LJ 1579.--‑Herein the bail was granted to the accused under section 435/34, P.P.C. as the occurrence was alleged to be at night and there was a delay of two days in lodging of the F.I.R., therefore, it was held that it was a case for further inquiry. (e) Muhammad Anwar v State 1983 S C M R 1001.‑‑Herein the bail granted to an accused who was stated to be below the age of 16 years according to the School leaving certificate in a murder case, in spite of the fact that the High Court had not accepted the age stated in the School leaving certificate.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State supported the order of the learned Sessions Judge, cancelling the bail of the petitioner, and further opposed the grant of the bail on the ground that it was a very serious crime and it is hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He further argued that there are witnesses of the occurrence named in the F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to the petitioner who is the main accused in the case. It was further argued that the delay is sufficiently explained in the F.I.R. and that the police investigation is not the final word on the guilt and the innocence of the accused, and that no mala fides have been attributed to the prosecution in naming of the petitioner as the main culprit, and that being a minor does not give a licence to commit such serious crime, and that if the accused is on bail he may influence the prosecution witnesses.

8. The facts and circumstances of the case as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not refuted by the learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the State has only attempted to explain away all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner but regretfully does not succeed in doing so and only succeeds in confirming the same to be true, and relevant for grant of bail.

9. Therefore, the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of 8 days, and that it was a night occurrence, and that the petitioner has been held to be innocent by more than one investigation by the different police officials, and that the trial has commenced and it has not been pointed out that any incriminating evidence has come against the petitioner on record and holding that each and everyone of these reasons renders the case against the petitioner to be a case of further inquiry, and placing reliance on the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is hereby admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur. N.H.Q./N‑292/L Bail granted.