ALI GOHAR vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Ali Gohar, who was charged in a criminal case involving the death of Abdul Majeed. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being assigned a specific role in the fatal assault. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with others, attacked the complainant party with lathis, and the applicant specifically struck the deceased on the head. The applicant argued that his case was similar to co-accused who had already been granted bail and that the deceased's dying declaration implicated multiple people. The Court held that because the applicant was assigned a specific, fatal role in a daytime incident, there were reasonable grounds to believe he was guilty of the charge. The Court determined that the applicant's case fell within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law, necessitating deeper appreciation of evidence at trial rather than at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, maintaining that the applicant was not entitled to the concession of bail.
- Does the assignment of a specific, fatal role in a crime bring an accused within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court grant bail when the applicant is accused of causing a fatal injury in a daytime incident where identity is not in question?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage when the applicant claims parity with co-accused?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---1. Granted.
2. The applicant was arrested in Crime No.9 of 2001 of Police Station, Kandhra.
2. According to F.I.R. The complainant Khadim Hussain, deceased Abdul Majeed, P.Ws. Gul Hassan and Ajib were present at link road when at about 5 p.m. 10 armed persons including the applicant Ali Gohar all armed with Lathies came there. One of the accused namely Abdul Qadir instigated other accused not to spare the complainant party. On which the applicant Ali Gohar caused Lathi injury on the person of deceased, other accused also caused Lathi blows to Gul Hassan, Abdul Majeed and Ajib. The complainant party raised cries on which P.Ws. Shahmir and others were attracted.
3. The complainant took injured to police station where he lodged the F.I.R. The injured were referred to Hospital, subsequently Abdul Majeed succumbed to the injuries. The applicant moved bail application before the trial Court but the same was dismissed hence the present application.
4. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the deceased in his dying declaration has stated that the applicant Ali Gohar had caused Lathi injury on his head and other co-accused Amanullah had also caused Lathi blow on his head. The P.W. Shahmir has also stated such facts in 161, Cr.P.C. Statement. The co-accused Wajid Ali and others have been granted bail by the trial Court, therefore the case of the applicant is similar to the case of co-accused who have been granted bail. He has referred to PLD 1972 SC 27 and 1996 SCM R 364.
5. ' Conversely the learned A.A.-G. Strongly opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the specific role has been assigned to the applicant for causing Lathi blow to the deceased. He has further stated that the case of other accused is distinguishable from the case of the applicant.
6. ' I have given due consideration to the arguments and perused the material placed on record.
7. The incident is day time incident, therefore question of mistaken identity can be turned out. The specific role for causing Lathi blow to the deceased has been assigned to the applicant. The deceased when he was alive in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Has stated that the deceased had received Lathi injury at the hands of two accused persons. Same facts have been supported by the witnesses in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Possibility of receiving injury by the deceased at one and same place by two bellows, cannot be ruled out.
8. However it requires deeper appreciation of evidence which cannot be undertaken at this stage.
9. The same point can be thrashed out at the time of recording the evidence of P.Ws. At the trial. But the fact remains that the applicant had caused injury to the deceased on his head which became fatal. The case-law cited by the learned counsel is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. ' After considering the material available on the record I am of the considered view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the charge and his case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore he is not entitled to the concession of bail. The application is dismissed.