DARYA KHAN and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, Darya Khan, Mour, and Qurban Ali, who were charged in Crime No. 70 of 2002 at Police Station Dhamra, District Larkana, for offences under sections 302, 337-H(II), 504, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the allegations of aerial firing and the evidentiary support for such claims. The prosecution alleged that while other co-accused were responsible for the fatal shots, the applicants were involved in aerial firing during the incident. The Court observed that the investigation revealed only one empty shell recovered from each of the two incident sites, which contradicted the prosecution's narrative regarding the extent of the firing attributed to the applicants. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that the evidentiary material did not sufficiently support the allegations against the applicants to warrant continued detention. The applicants were directed to furnish sureties and regularly attend trial proceedings, with the trial court empowered to cancel bail upon any misuse of the concession.
- Does the recovery of only a single empty shell from an incident site undermine allegations of extensive aerial firing by multiple accused?
- Can bail be granted when the primary allegations of fatal injury are attributed to co-accused rather than the applicants?
- Is pre-arrest bail maintainable when the prosecution's evidence regarding the specific role of the accused is inconsistent with the recovery memo?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(II), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUSHIR ALAM, J.---The applicants claim bail in Crime No,70 of 2002 Police Station Dhamra, District Larkana for an offence under sections 302, 337-H(II), 504, 148, 149, P.P.C. From the allegations contained in the F.I.R. Itappears that parties were having matrimonial dispute. On the day of alleged incident Abdul Haque Jagirani is stated to be duly armed with Klashnikov, along with other persons including applicants Darya Khan, Mour and Qurban Ali Darya Khan and Mour were alleged to be armed with pistols whereas Qurban Ali is said to be armed with gun, there is direct allegation against other co-accused Mehar who fired from his Klashnikov straight on nephew of complainants Abdul Rehman who succumbed to the injuries, while the other co-accused made aerial fire including the present applicants, it seems that same group of co-accused proceeded towards the house of Mst. Tajul who was stated to have died from the straight fire caused by co- accusedAbdul Haque from his Klashnikov. Allegation against the present applicants are of causing aerial fire at the second incident of occurrence as well.
2. ' It is contended by the learned counsel that the parties are inimical to each other and the applicants have been falsely implicated. It is further urged that only one empty from each place of incident has been recovered which does not support the case of aerial fire made against the co- accused including the applicants. It is stated that even the witnesses who are alleged to have seen the incident of causing fire-shot at Mst. Tajul namely Raza Muhammad and Mithal have not implicated the present appiiant of having cause her death.
3. ' Learned State counsel concedes after perusal of the police file that only one empty each was recovered from the two places of incident. Under circumstances, pre-arrest on 11-8-2005 is confirmed. However the applicants present in Court are directed to furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs,100,000 each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and the security furnished before this Court may be released and discharged on furnishing surety before learned trial Court.
4. ' Applicants are directed to regularly attend the trial Court and associate with prosecution as and when called upon to do so, learned trial Court may cancel the bail if the applicants misuse or abuse the concession of the bail any time.
5. ' Applications in terms or the above disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus State 2008 PLD 157