ALI HASSAN and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by two accused persons, Ali Hassan and Mumtaz Ali Meno, who were implicated in a murder case. The core legal question was whether there existed reasonable grounds to believe the applicants were guilty of abetment in the commission of the murder, thereby justifying their continued detention. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was killed while in police custody, and the complainant suspected the applicants of instigating or facilitating the crime. Upon review, the Court found that applicant Ali Hassan was confined in prison at the time of the incident, and there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime beyond mere suspicion. Similarly, regarding applicant Mumtaz Ali, the Court noted an absence of direct evidence of his involvement, observing that the police had actually apprehended another suspect at the scene. Consequently, the Court held that the case against the applicants required further inquiry. The Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where direct evidence is absent and the case rests on suspicion, further inquiry is warranted under the law.
- Does the absence of direct evidence against an accused person charged with abetment justify the grant of bail pending further inquiry?
- Can an accused person be denied bail based solely on the suspicion of the complainant party when no direct evidence is present?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ALI SAIN DINO MAITLO, J.--- Heard Messrs Ahsan Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate for applicant Mumtaz Ali Meno and Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for applicant Ali Hassan and Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo learned State Counsel. The latter has no objection for the grant of bail to the applicants.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that deceased Zulfiqar sister's son of complainant Abdullah, facing charge of murder of one Manzoor Khoso, was confined in District Prison, Dadu. On 7-6-2005 he along with other under-trial prisoners was brought to Court at Mehar in connection with hearing of a criminal case. H.C. Mumtaz Ali Meno (present applicant) was the incharge of the police party that had brought the custody from Dadu. Complainant Abdullah, his sister's son Mazhar Ali and wife's brother Niaz Hussain had also come to the Court for the purpose of meeting with the deceased.
3. They noticed accused Akbar, Gulzar, Sudheer, Ali Sher and Juman whispering with each other in the Court premises. They suspected some foul play and alerted the head constable. But the latter did not pay any heed to it and took deceased along with under-trial prisoner Bahadur Mahessar to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar and as soon as he was taking the custody back from the Court at about 1330 hours the above mentioned accused took out pistols from the folds of their trousers and attacked upon the deceased. Accused Sudheer fired at the back chest of the deceased wfiereafter all the accused managed to escape except accused Akbar who was apprehended by the police and the complainant party at the spot along with an unlicensed pistol with 3 cartridges. The injured was rushed to the Taluka Hospital Mehar in serious condition where he succumbed. The first information report was lodged by the complainant Abdullah at Police Station Mehar on the same day at 1430 hours. According to the complainant the above mentioned accused had killed the deceased on the instigation of applicant Ali Hassan confined in jail. He also suspected involvement of applicant Mumtaz Ali.
4. ' So far applicant/accused Ali Hassan is concerned he was not present at the place of incident and was confined in prison. Except for the suspicion of the complainant party, the investigating agency has failed to collect any direct evidence showing his involvement in the commission of the crime.
5. Similarly, there is also no direct evidence showing involvement of applicant Mumtaz Ali in the commission of the crime. On the contrary, accused Akbar was apprehended at the spot along with pistol with his efforts. In absence of any direct evidence against them, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants were guilty of abetment in the commission of murder of the deceased. However, the matter requires further inquiry as contemplated by the subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the applicants are admitted to bail each in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety and personal recognizance in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- AMIR BUX vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 668