WALI MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicants who were charged under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving armed robbery and an effective fire. The core legal question concerns whether bail should be granted to the accused when prosecution witnesses at trial have exonerated them and the statutory period of incarceration has exceeded two years and eight months, coupled with the State's concession. The Sindh High Court allowed the application, holding that in light of the material brought on record during the trial wherein key witnesses exonerated the applicants, their continued detention was unwarranted. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses completely exonerate the accused during trial and the accused has undergone a protracted period of incarceration, further detention is not justified, especially when supported by the State.
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused when key prosecution witnesses exonerate them during the trial?
- Does prolonged incarceration exceeding two years and eight months warrant the grant of post-arrest bail in heinous offences?
- Can the concession of bail by the State Counsel influence the court's decision in allowing a bail application?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Applicants have been charged with an offence punishable under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and 324, P.P.C.
2. ' It is the case of prosecution that on 11-5-2001, complainant Engineer Lal and his brother Vinodkumar were going on motorcycle when they were intercepted by two unidentified bandits armed with T.T. Pistols and the motorcycle was snatched from them on the point of firearms. An effective fire was also made at them. It is alleged that during investigation the motorcycle was recovered from the possession of present applicants., The applicants were arrested on 11-5-2001 and since then they are in jail.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Mahar learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto learned State Counsel. The latter concedes to grant of bail.
4. ' Mr. Mahar referred to depositions of Engineer Lal and Vinodkumar recorded at the trial wherein they have completely exonerated the applicants saying that they were not the real culprits. In view of these versions recorded during the trial it can hardly be said that they should be still kept behind the bars on the ground that the motorcycle was recovered from their possession during investigation. The applicants have however, remained in jail for a period of more than two years and eight months and the learned State Counsel also concedes to grant of bail. The application is allowed. The applicants be released on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.