WALIDINO alias GUDDO vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Walidino alias Guddo, who was implicated in a criminal case involving charges of deterring police officials from performing their duties. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of evidence supporting the allegations. The applicant contended that the First Information Report was concocted and falsely registered, noting that no police officials were injured during the alleged incident. The Court observed that the prosecution, represented by the Assistant Advocate General, did not oppose the bail application. Upon reviewing the record, specifically the Mashirnama of the place of occurrence, the Court found no evidence of injuries or recovered empties, despite the police invoking Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 alongside Section 353. Holding that there were valid reasons to believe the case was falsely foisted by the police, the Court granted bail. The judgment emphasizes that where evidence is lacking, an accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right, while also criticizing police victimization and the failure of subordinate courts to effectively manage such situations.
- Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right when there are valid reasons to believe the case was falsely foisted by the police?
- Does the absence of injuries or recovered evidence at the place of occurrence support a claim of false implication in a criminal case?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---The applicant having been implicated on the charges of deterring the police officials from performing their lawful duties as alleged in the F.I.R. Crime No.63 of 2003, registered by S.I.P., Ali Bux Jamali on behalf of the State has prayed for bail.
2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that as usual the applicant has been falsely implicated and a concocted F.I.R. Has been registered against him as no such incident has taken place. None of the police officials was injured.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Has no objection to the grant of bail.
4. The contentions raised have been considered and the material placed on the record has been perused.
5. Admittedly neither anybody was injured nor empties of any kind were recovered from the place of Wardat as affirmed by learned A.A.-G. After going through the Mashirnama of Wardat prepared by the police itself, though police has applied section 324, P.P.C. Also along with section 353, P.P.C.
There are valid reasons to believe that this case has been falsely foisted by the police. He is accordingly entitled to bail as a matter of right.
6. The applicant is accordingly directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. Before parting with this order, it must be stated that it appears that there is no check on the atrocities and victimization being committed by the police upon the innocent citizens, which reflects sorry state of affairs. It is rather more concerning to observe that in some cases the subordinate Judges have rendered themselves inept to arrest the situation, partly for want of acumen and competence and mainly due to lack of confidence, courage, prudence and wisdom.
Resultantly superior Courts are unnecessarily burdened with petty matters. This problem must be taken care of by the District and Sessions Judges in an effective manner. Separate instructions to follow.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD FAISAL vs THE STATE 2009 MLD 594