DEEDAR ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Deedar Ali seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case relating to a police encounter. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to bail when his name is absent from the F.I.R., no weapon was recovered from his possession, no injuries were sustained on either side, and the record shows no empties were recovered from the scene of the incident to substantiate the encounter theory involving a second person. The court held that the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under the circumstances and granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution record fails to connect the accused to the crime scene and contradicts the primary allegations in the F.I.R., the accused becomes entitled to the concession of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when his name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and no weapon is recovered from his possession?
- Does the absence of corroborative evidence such as weapon empties at the scene of a police encounter justify the grant of bail?
ORDER
1. Granted.
2. Granted but subject to all just exceptions.
3. This is a case of police encounter which took place on 25-7-2001 in between 5 and 5-20 p.m. At protection bund near village Gul Khoso.
' It is alleged in the F.I.R. That on receipt of spy information police party reached the pointed place where they saw one person armed with rifle, who seeing the police party tried to run towards the jungle, therefore, encounter took place and thereafter the said person was arrested who disclosed his name as Manzoor and rifle was secured from his possession. The accused and the property were brought to the police station where the F.I.R. Was lodged. The present applicant was arrested on 29-7-2002. A bail application was moved before the trial Court, but the same was dismissed, hence the present application.
' The learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that the name of the applicant has not been mentioned in the F.I.R.; that no weapon has been secured from his possession and that the presence of second person at the place of incident was not shown by the police in F.I.R. As such the applicant has been falsely involved in the case.
' The learned State counsel has stated that the police have alleged that the encounter took place between the police and one dacoit and that the applicant was not arrested from the Wardat and no weapon has been secured from his possession. He has further stated that the Mashirnama of Wardat does not show empties of weapon lying or secured from the Wardat by the police, therefore, he has no objection to the grant of bail.
'The record supports the above contentions. It is not known from where the police had brought the second person and challaned him in the case as the encounter took place between police and only one alleged dacoit. Further more no empties of weapons were secured from the place of Wardat to substantiate the allegation of encounter nor anybody had received any injury from either side. Under these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for the concession of bail, therefore, bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs,50,000 on furnishing solvent surety with PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.
' The application is allowed.