MUHAMMAD SHARIF alias ABDUL RAHIM vs THE STATE
This post-arrest bail application was brought before the Sindh High Court by the applicant accused under Sections 302, 337-H(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with Crime No. 11 of 2002. The legal issue was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of mistaken identity/misdescription in the FIR and material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence. The applicant contended that his name is Abdul Rahim and not Muhammad Sharif, producing his National Identity Card and Passport issued well prior to the FIR to establish his identity. The High Court observed that the initial FIR and challan did not state the applicant was also known by an alias. Furthermore, while the FIR alleged that two accused fired at the deceased, medical evidence revealed only a single firearm injury, and fewer empty shells were recovered from the scene than alleged. Holding that the identity of the accused and the conflict between medical and ocular evidence required further inquiry, the High Court allowed the application and granted post-arrest bail.
- Whether a dispute regarding the true identity and alias of an accused person warrants the grant of bail on grounds of further inquiry?
- Whether a conflict between the ocular account alleging multiple shooters and medical evidence showing a single firearm injury entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Whether official documents such as an N.I.C. and Passport issued prior to the FIR can be relied upon at the bail stage to establish misdescription of the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---Applicant seeks bail in an offence under sections 302, 337-H(2), 148 and 149, P.P.C., registered as Crime No.11 of 2002, Police Station Thull.
2. ' One Rahim Bux son of Kamaluddin filed F.I.R. Alleging that on 30-1-2002 at about 8-00 a.m. While they were near the Autaq of Yaseen Bangulan, Ghulam Yaseen son of Imam Bux, Muhammad Sharif son of Jan Baig, Arab son of Rahim Bux, Ghulam Rasool son of Imam Bux, Baggan son of Jan Baig, having gun in their hand came there, controlled and aimed their weapons. Accused Ghulam Yaseen fired from his gun upon complainant's son Noorullah and accused Muhammad Sharif fired from his gun at him. Thereafter, all the accused persons went away to their houses by firing in the air by creating harassm ent.
3. ' Heard Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Shaikh, Asstt.A.-G.
4. ' The learned Advocate for the applicant vehemently argued that name of the applicant is Abdul Rahim son of Jan Baig and he is not Muhammad Sharif son of Jan Baig. The learned Advocate further argued that the police initially submitted challan in the name of Muhammad Sharif son of Jan Baig, however, after arresting the applicant they submitted the challan alleging therein Muhammad Sharif alias Abdul Rahim son of Jan Muhammad. In support of his contention, learned Advocate relied upon School Leaving Certificate, N.I.0 and Passport of the applicant.
5. ' Learned Asstt. A.-G pointed out that there is some discrepancy about the date of birth in School Leaving Certificate and National Identity Card.
6. ' I have taken in consideration arguments advanced by learned Advocates for the respective parties. It appears that though there is some discrepancy about the date of birth in the School Leaving Certificate issued on 10-1-2005 and date of birth of the applicant has been shown as 2-9- 1968, but same is not so material to affect merits of the case in any manner. N.I.C. Was issued to applicant in the year 1984, much before the registration of F.I.R. Likewise, Passport was issued somewhat in 1992. In both these documents, the applicant's name has been shown as Abdul Rahim son of Jan Baig and date of birth as 1948. On both the documents photograph of the applicant appears. In the challan submitted at the initial stage it was not the case of the prosecution nor of the complainant that the applicant is known as Muhammad Sharif A alias Abdul Rahim. Be that as it may, from the perusal of F.I.R., it appears that Ghulam Yaseen as well as Muhammad Sharif fired upon the deceased, whereas from the medical report it appears that deceased had received only one fire-arm injury. It further appears from the perusal of F.I.R. That all the accused persons thereafter fired in the air for creating harassment, but as per Mashirnama of place of Wardat only two empties were recovered from the Wardat.
7. ' For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that it is yet to be decided whether the applicant is the person against whom F.I.R. Has been registered and further there is contradictions between the ocular evidence and medical report. Accordingly, applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 and P.R. Bound in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The application is accordingly allowed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD IMRAN alias UMER vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 306