ARAB and 10 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns two bail applications filed by accused persons involved in Crime No. 29 of 2005, registered at Police Station Sehwan, involving allegations of assault with hard and blunt substances resulting in multiple injuries and one fatality. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to post-arrest bail given the discrepancies between the F.I.R. and subsequent investigative findings. The court noted that while the F.I.R. nominated 23 assailants, the investigating officer initially declared 8 as innocent, though the Magistrate later took cognizance against all 23. Furthermore, while initial statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 assigned specific roles, subsequent statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contained only general allegations. The court held that the possibility of exaggeration in the prosecution's version could not be excluded. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicants, emphasizing that where investigative inconsistency exists and specific roles are diluted in later statements, the accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt at the bail stage.
- Can a court grant bail when the prosecution version appears exaggerated due to discrepancies between initial and subsequent witness statements?
- Does the Magistrate have the authority to take cognizance against accused persons whom the police report declared innocent?
- Is bail appropriate when specific roles assigned in initial statements are replaced by general allegations in subsequent statements?
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, J.---This order shall dispose of two bail applications, number whereof are mentioned above, as both of them are filed in the same case registered as Crime No,29 of 2005 at Police Station Sehwan.
2. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That on 1-6-2005, 23 assailants equipped with hard and blunt substance launched attack upon Allah Jurio and others when they were sitting in Teashop of Noor Muhammad. The iron rods and lathis were used by the assailants against 10 persons including Noor Muhammad, the owner of the hotel. All of them received multiple injuries. Allah Julio the injured, having two injuries on his person had succumbed to the injuries whereas, the remaining were survived.
3. In the F.I.R. Lodged by Muhammad Khan, 23 persons were nominated as the assailants. The names of injured persons are Ghulam Sarwar, Yar Muhammad, Mushtaq, M. Hassan, Laloo, Dost Muhammad, Noor Muhammad, Aijaz, Muhammad and Allah Jurio. The last one is the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries. The injuries on the persons of remaining were declared as Shajjah- i-Khafifa.
4. In the result of investigation, 8 of the accused persons named in the F.I.R., were declared innocent and released whereas 15 were challaned, but when the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was placed before the concerned Magistrate, he did not agree with the opinion about innocence and took cognizance of the offence against all the 23 accused persons.
5. The bail plea of the applicants/accused was turned down by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sehwan. After that present application has been moved.
6. At the very outset Mr. Khadim Hussain Solangi stated that he does not press the application of applicants/accused Muhammad Ali, Qasim and Mehmood for the present and shall make another attempt before the trial Court after some progress is made in the trial. Their 'application is, therefore, dismissed.
7. As regards the remaining applicants, they are nominated in the F.I.R. As the assailants and in section 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the witnesses, some of them were assigned specific role also, but later on in the statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. The six injured witnesses levelled general allegations of assault against them. In view of that position and the fact that the Investigating Officer had declared 8 persons as innocent the possibility of exaggeration in the prosecution version cannot be excluded, therefore, I consider it proper to release the applicants on bail. They shall be released on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.