Haji ISMAIL and another vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through a bail application filed by the applicants facing trial in Crime No. 65 of 2006 registered at Police Station Mehar under sections 353, 384, 224, 22-B, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail when the FIR contains general allegations of grappling with the police party without specifying the manner of facilitating the escape of prisoners from lawful custody, and whether their case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that in the absence of specific allegations regarding the manner of facilitation, the applicants' role requires further inquiry at trial, and their offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, laying down the principle that general allegations without specific attribution regarding facilitation warrant the concession of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Does a general allegation of grappling with police without specifying the manner of facilitating an escape make out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Whether mere presence and grappling with police officials at the scene of an escape disentitles an accused person from the concession of bail?
- Do offences under sections 353, 384, 224, 22-B, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code strictly fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the circumstances of this case?
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 384, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 224, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 22-B, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.---The applicants are facing trial in Crime No,65 of 2006 of Police Station Mehar under sections 353, 384, 224, 22-B, 337-A(i) P.P.C.
2. The allegations against the applicants are that on the day of incident when two prisoners Abid Hussain and Anwar Khoso escaped from the police custody they visited them and stood in front and grappled with the police party and in the meanwhile the two accused boarded on two motorcycles and fled away.
3. ' The applicants have filed bail application in the trial Court who has dismissed the same on the ground that the bare reading of the F.I.R. Shows that the names of the applicants with specific role of facilitating the prisoners who escaped from the lawful custody of police, is attributed to them, who were required in heinous nature of the case and also deterred the police from the discharge of their official duties.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that in the F.I.R. There is no specific allegation against the applicant that they have facilitated the accused persons from escaping from the police custody. He further submits that mere presence of the applicant at the place of Wardat does not disentitle him from the concession of bail as their role in the commission of the offence has yet to be decided and they have not committed any offence failing under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. ' Learned State counsel has conceded the bail on the ground that in the F.I.R. No specific role has been assigned to the present applicant.
6. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before me.
7. In the F.I.R. It has been stated that on the day of incident the two applicants have gone to the Court premises and have met two accused persons who were escaped from the police custody. The further allegation is that they stood in front and grappled with the police party. No allegation has been made against the applicants that in what manner they have facilitated the accused in escaping from the police custody. In absence of any specific allegation with regard to the manner in which the applicants have facilitated the escape of the accused persons, the role of the applicants in the commission of the offence is, to be decided at the trial stage.
8. ' In view of this, the applicants have made out a case of further inquiry into their guilt and it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
9. ' I therefore, allow this bail application and the applicants be released on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD HASHIM SEHT0 vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 1224