MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs THE STATE
The applicant Muhammad Ibrahim sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 47 of 2004 registered at Police Station Nasirabad under sections 302, 148, 149, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail where he was named in the FIR but no specific overt act, instigation, or recovery was attributed to him, and the State counsel conceded this position. The Sindh High Court held that since no overt act, instigation, or firing was attributed to the applicant despite being alleged to carry a gun, a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was made out. The court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing solvent surety. The key principle laid down is that the mere attribution of carrying a weapon in the FIR without any overt act, specific role, or recovery justifies the grant of bail pending trial.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when named in the FIR carrying a weapon but with no overt act or recovery attributed to him?
- Does the absence of any specific role or instigation attributed in the FIR make out a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Muhammad Ibrahim son of Haji Andal facing trial in Crime No,47 of 2004, Police Station, Nasirabad for an offence under sections 302, 148, 149, 114, P.P.C. Seeks bail on the ground, inter alia, that no role has been assigned, nor recovery has been effected from the present applicant though he was arrested on 21-5-2004. One of the co-accused Qasim son of Andal who is alleged to have instigated the commission of the crime 'has been let off by the police and placed in Column No,2 of the challan. Overt act is attributed to Haleem of giving Danda blow to father of the complainant Jan Muhammad and hatchet blow is attributed to Bashir Ahmed and Shabir is alleged to have inflicted other side of hatchet and Lathi blow respectively to the son of the complainant. Bail was declined by the learned trial Court i.e, on the promise that the F.I.R. Was prompt, accused are named in the F.I.R. And there are serious allegations against accused persons who were implicated by witnesses, medical evidence corroborates the ocular version.
2. ' Mr. Mehboob All Shah, learned State counsel conceded that, no overt act is attributed to the applicant.
3. ' I have also considered the submissions made by the applicant's counsel and perused the F.I.R., which shows that though the applicant was alleged to carrying gun, but no overt act is attributed towards him, no even instigation or even fire in air to scare away the complainant. Such circumstances to in my view case is made out, applicant is extended bail subject to furnishing of a solvent surety in the sum of Rs, one hundred thousand and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. In case the applicant abuses the concession of bail, the learned trial Court may cancel the same.
Cited by 1 case
- NAEEM-UL-ARFEEN Versus State 2016 YLRN 112