TAREEN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Tareen, who is facing trial in a criminal case registered at Police Station Dakhan, District Shikarpur. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of his implication and the evidentiary record. The Court observed that the incident occurred at night, the applicant was not named in the First Information Report, and he was not implicated in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the applicant was subjected to an identification test only after ten days of his arrest, and no recovery was effected from his possession. The State did not oppose the bail application. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant's case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court granted bail to the applicant, establishing the principle that where an accused is not named in the initial report or witness statements and no incriminating recovery is made, a case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the First Information Report and subsequent witness statements justify the grant of bail?
- Is a case for further inquiry established when an accused is implicated solely through a delayed identification test?
- Can bail be granted when the State does not oppose the application and no recovery has been made from the accused?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant is facing trial in Crime No,66 of 2000 Police Station Dakhan District Shikarpur, which was recorded on 6-10-2000 at the instance of complainant Naik Muhammad. According to him six unknown persons were stealing away his buffaloe from his house, on which, he raised cries and challenged the accused persons. In the meanwhile gunplay took place in between the accused and the complainant party resultantly two persons from the side of accused lost their lives while one Nusrat Hussain and a buffaloe received injuries.
2. ' The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been implicated in this case on the basis of 164, Cr.P.C. Statements which were recorded on 31-10-2000 while the F.I.R. Was registered on 6-10-2000. He submits that in fact neither name of applicant appears in the F.I.R. Nor he has been named in 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the P.Ws recorded after 6/7 days of the incident. He further submits that the incident has taken place in the night time and false implication of the applicant in such a manner cannot be ruled out.
3. ' On the other hand Mr. Ali Azher Tunio, learned Assistant A-G for the State has very candidly raised no objection for the grant of bail to the applicant.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Assistant A.-G for the State. Admittedly, the incident seems to have taken place at night time. The applicant was arrested on 23-10-2000 and after ten days of his arrest on 30-10-2000 he was put to identification test. He has not been nominated in F.I.R. Nor by the P.Ws in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C.
5. Statements which was recorded about 6/7 days after the incident which makes the case of applicant of further inquiry. Also, no recovery has been effected from his possession. The learned Assistant A.-G has also not opposed the grant of bail. In the circumstances, applicant Tareen is granted bail subject to furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs,1,50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAFAR HUSSAIN vs The STATE 2013 YLR 1751