SOBAL vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Sobal, who was implicated in an F.I.R. concerning robbery and harabah along with a counter-version involving a fatal blood feud resulting in deaths and injuries on both sides. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in the F.I.R., the existence of a counter-case, the nature of the weapon attributed to the applicant, and the applicability of further inquiry under the relevant criminal jurisprudence. The Sindh High Court accepted the bail plea and allowed the application, holding that the presence of a counter-version, unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., and the absence of direct corroborative evidence regarding the specific overt act of robbery at this stage bring the applicant's case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where rival versions exist in a background of blood feuds and serious discrepancies or delays attend the primary prosecution case, further inquiry is warranted, making a strong ground for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the existence of a counter-version warrant the grant of post-arrest bail for further inquiry?
- Does the absence of direct evidence regarding specific overt acts from eye-witnesses at the preliminary stage justify releasing an accused on bail?
- Is an accused allegedly armed with a lesser weapon entitled to bail when cross-cases involving casualties and a blood feud are registered by rival parties?
ORDER
' The incident in this case is said to have taken place on 24-9-2003 at 9-45 p.m., but the F.I.R. Has been lodged after three days on 27-9-2003. At 6-00 p.m. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That 12 persons including the applicant Sobal armed with fire-arms, Lathis and hatchets out of whom the applicant was carrying a lathi, robbed 23 buffaloes from complainant Muhammad Azeem, who after grazing the cattle was returning home. It is stated in the F.I.R. That the complainant entreated the culprits to leave the buffaloes, but in the meantime six other persons emerged all of a sudden. From amongst the' culprits they challenged Zulfiqar Khuhro. And Abdul Hadi. Khuhro saying that they had previously killed some men from their party. Immediately then exchange of indiscriminate fires ensued. The witnesses Munir and Siddique saw the incident. It was found that Amanullah and Zulfiqar were dead while Ghulam Shabir and Sobal were lying injured. It is the case of complainant that those six persons namely Muhammad Hassan and others attacked the culprits while taking the buffaloes.
2. A counter-version of the same incident was reported by Allah Warayo on 25-9-2003 nominating the aforementioned six persons who in the background of the current blood feud attacked the complainant party and fired at them leaving Zulfiqar and Amanullah dead and Ghulam Shabir and applicant Sobal, injured.
3. The Investigating Officer of both the cases appeared in the Court and stated that the last mentioned case is under investigation since none has been arrested.
4. I have heard Mr. Faiz Muhammad Larik, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State counsel.
5. The main contention is that in the counter cast the worst sufferers are the complainant party out of whom one is the applicant. Two persons were killed and two were injured in the said case. The applicant was arrested from hospital and in the instant case allegation against him is that he was armed with a lathi. Never the less, beyond the version of complainant there is no direct evidence to, prima facie, allege the involvement of the applicant in the commission of harabah. Even the witnesses cited in the F.I.R. Are silent on the point of snatching of buffaloes. They have spoken only about the dead bodies and injured persons lying at the place of incident, which is, of course, subject matter of the counter case. The delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Is conspicuous, and on this point the authority cited by learned counsel for the applicant Shah Ali v. State 1976 PCr.LJ 1021 also lends support to the bail plea. The other authorities Fazal Hussain v. State 1976 SCM R 124 and Mahfoozur-Rehman v. . State 2001 PCr.LJ 207 also furnish support to the case of applicant.
6. In view of the evidence collected during investigation, it can be said that in the background of blood feud between the parties and counter versions recorded by police, the case of the applicant on the sole version of complaint would require further inquiry. Resultantly, the bail plea is accepted and the application is allowed. Applicant be released on furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs. One lac and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.