ZULFIQAR ALI BAKHRANI ' vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Zulfiqar Ali Bakhrani, who was charged with offences under sections 459, 380, 148, 149, and 337-I(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, specifically the delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.), the initial report to the police stating the culprits were unidentified, and a medical board's finding that the complainant's son's injury appeared self-inflicted. The High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry due to these significant contradictions and improvements in the prosecution's version of events. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where there is a substantial delay in naming the accused, an initial report contradicting the F.I.R., and medical evidence casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative, the case falls within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the law, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail pending trial.
- Does a significant delay in naming the accused in an F.I.R. after an initial report to the police constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a medical board's opinion that an injury is self-suffered provide sufficient basis for granting bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case relies on a version of events that contradicts an earlier report recorded in the police Roznamcha?
- Section 459, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-I(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Applicant Zulfiqar has sough bail in the case registered at Police Station Tangwani for an offence punishable under sections 459, 380, 148 149/337-1-1(2), P.P.C.
2. ' The facts, as disclosed in the F.I.R., are that on 28-4-2003 at 12-10 midnight complainant Jani woke up on the barking of dogs and found four persons namely, Gulzar and Muhammad Shaban each armed with klashnikov, applicant Zulfiqar carrying a Lathi and Muhammad Bachal armed with gun standing in the courtyard near the cattle and four unidentified persons armed with Lathis, standing near the hedge. He challenged them. On this applicant Zulfiqar grappled with him, as a result, his licensed gun fell down. His son Khadim Hussain and cousin Sain Bux rushed to the scene, applicant Zulfiqar and unidentified persons gave lathi blows to complainant and his son Khadim Hussain.
3. Muhammad Shaban fired from his klashnikov which hit Khadim Hussain at his heel. Complainant's nephew Manzoor also came there to whom Lathi blows were given by Zilfiqar and unidentified persons. Co-villages rushed to the scene whereupon the culprits decamped taking away the licensed gun of the complainant. The complainant party approached Gulzar and others for 'Faisla' and return of gun who promised to return the same and to make 'Faisla', complainant, therefore, under advice of the Nek Mards simply obtained a letter for medical treatment stating before the police that all the culprits were unidentified persons. Such report was recorded by police in the Roznamcha. After two days thereof the complainant lodged the F.I.R. Nominating the accused persons as above.
4. ' I have heard Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo Advocate for State, the Jana concedes to the grant of bail.
5. ' It is an admitted position that soon after the incident report of complainant was recorded in the Roznamcha at 10-00 aim. Specifically mentioning therein that unidentified persons gave a call to him from outside the house and thereafter the incident took place. The fact of lodging earlier report with police is duly mentioned in the F.I.R. Even then, after two days the complainant has come out with a changed version nominating four culprits including the applicant. It is again surprising to note that in respect of allegation that Klashnikov burst hit Khadim Hussain, a Medical Board was constituted to examine the injury and it was opined by the Board that the injury appeared to be self-suffered one. Learned counsel for the applicant, as such argued that this is a case of two versions. In fact it is a case of improvement also as in the first instance the names were not given and then the names were disclosed in the F.I.R. This fact coupled with the self-suffered injury opined by the Medical Board makes a ground for bail in favour of the applicant being a case of further enquiry. The applicant.Is behind the bars for a period of more than one year two months without trial.
6. ' In consequence of the above the applicant is allowed bail. The applicant may be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.