SALEH vs ABDULLAH and another
This is a criminal application filed by the complainant Saleh seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondents Abdullah and Mir Hassan by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta, in a case arising from Crime No. 49 of 2002 registered at Police Station Daro. The core legal question concerned whether bail was improperly granted by the trial court in a case involving firearm injuries falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court held that the respondents were directly nominated with specific roles of firing causing multiple injuries, supported by eyewitness testimony and recovery of a weapon, and that the case did not warrant further inquiry. Consequently, the High Court cancelled the bail, ruling that discretion was improperly exercised by the trial court, and directed the trial court to take steps for the re-arrest of the accused and conclude the trial within six months.
- Whether bail can be cancelled when the accused are directly nominated with specific roles of firing in a daylight incident?
- Does a case involving multiple firearm injuries fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail properly granted on frivolous grounds when sufficient evidence directly implicates the accused?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Applicant/complainant Saleh has sought the cancellation of bail of respondents Abdullah and Mir Hassan granted to them by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta in Crime No,49 of 2002 of Police Station Daro under sections 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-H(ii), 504 and 34, P. P. C .
2. ' Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated by complainant Saleh is that he is a Retired Teacher whereas his son injured Mir Hussain is Primary Teacher in their village He stated that shop of accused Abdullah was set on fire some time prior to this incident and he suspected his son Mir Hussain to be responsible for that fire.
3. ' Due to that enmity they were on inimical terms with them.
4. ' On 6-11-2002 complainant Saleh, Abdul Qadir and Taj Muhammad were standing near their house when his son Mir Hussain was returning from school after attending his duties. At about 2 p.m.
5. When he reached near the house, he was attacked by Abdullah, Mir Hassan and Siddique who all were armed with pistols. Accused Mir Hassan and Abdullah fired from their pistols which hit Mir Hussain at various parts of his body and fell down. The accused then made their escape good. The injured was removed to hospital at Daro wherefrom he was referred to Civil Hospital, Hyderabad.
6. After that the complainant proceeded to Police Station Daro and lodged the report.
7. ' After registration of F,I.R. The accused were arrested on 17-11-2002. They moved bail application and were granted bail by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta on 10-2-2003.
8. ' I have head, Mr. Muhammad Ismail Memon for applicant and Mr. Habibur Rashid State Counsel.
9. The latter has not supported the .
10. ' The accused and their counsel are absent without any intimation.
11. ' The record shows that three accused namely Abdullah, Mir Hassan and Siddique were nominated in the F.I.R. All of them were armed with pistols but two of them Abdullah and Mir Hassan directly fired at injured Mir Hussain who sustained six fire-arm injuries on various parts of his body. Accused Siddique was however, let of by the police. This is broad-daylight incident which is supported by three eyewitnesses namely Saleh, Abdul Qadir and Taj Muhammad. On their arrest, accused Abdullah led the police and Mashirs to the recovery of pistol, two live bullets and a magazine. The alleged enmity is the motive for commission of the crime. Delay of 4 hours in lodging F.I.R. Is explained as in the first instance, the injured was taken to hospital and then the complainant went to lodge F.I.R. The case has not proceeded in the trial Court. Bail was granted on frivolous grounds.
12. Both the accused were ascribed specific role of firing. The case was covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Nowhere in the it is mentioned that the accused were not prima facie involved in a case falling under prohibitory clause and that it was a case of further inquiry.
13. ' Under these circumstances, it was not a case of further inquiry. Sufficient evidence is available on the record which directly implicates them. The discretion was improperly used. The bail of accused is, therefore, cancelled. The trial Court should take proper steps to get them arrested and remand them to the custody.
14. ' The trial Court is further directed to proceed with the case expeditiously and decide it as soon as possible not beyond the period of six months.
15. Bail cancelled.