Hussain Bux vs The State
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Hussain Bux, who was implicated in a case of theft involving electric wires. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the investigation, specifically the delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.), the lack of eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, and the absence of any recovery of stolen property from the applicant. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons three days after the incident, and subsequent statements naming the accused did not claim that anyone had actually witnessed the theft. Furthermore, the Court noted that no identification parade was conducted following the applicant's arrest. In light of these evidentiary deficiencies and the State counsel's concession, the Court allowed the application. The holding establishes that where the prosecution case lacks eyewitness testimony, recovery, or identification proceedings, the accused is entitled to the grant of bail pending trial, as the case against them appears to be one of no evidence.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution case lacks eyewitnesses, recovery, and identification proceedings?
- Does a delay in lodging an F.I.R. impact the grant of bail in theft cases?
- Can bail be granted when the State counsel concedes to the application?
ORDER
WAHID BUX BROHI, J.- lt is alleged that on 13.8.2003 wire of electric line were found to have been cutoff and stolen away between three poles measuring about 3600 feet. The electric line was repaired and F.I.R, was lodged after three days i.e. 16.8.2003 against unknown persons.
2. I have heard Mr. Jai Jai Veshno Mange Ram, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned counsel for the State.
3. Lt was clearly stated in the F.I.R, by complainant Syed Din Shah Line Superintendent that PWs Ghous Bux and Shama-suddin also performed the same duties and they were with him when the theft was detected. On 16.8.2003 when the F.I.R, was lodged, the statements of Ghous Bux and Shamasuddin were also recorded wherein they gave the names of 8 persons alleging that they had committed the theft, lt was no where stated that any person had witnessed the incident.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that even recovery has not been made and the applicant was arrested on 18.9.2003, but no identification test was held. He contended that in fact this is a case of no evidence.
4. Mr. M. I. Bhutto, learned State counsel in view of the afore-stated circumstances conceded to grant of bail.
5. Ln result of the above, the application is allowed. The applicant may be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) and executing P.R bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Trial Court.