MUKHTIAR ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Mukhtiar Ali, challenging the trial court's order dated 22-11-2005, which had previously rejected his request for post-arrest bail. The core legal question before the High Court was whether, given the evidentiary gaps regarding the alleged injuries and the prolonged period of incarceration, the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail. The High Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce a medical certificate for the injured party, Gulzar Sandeelo, and that the applicant had already been in custody for approximately five years. Furthermore, the State counsel conceded that the co-accused had already been granted bail. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to substantiate allegations of injury with medical evidence and the accused has suffered a prolonged period of pre-trial incarceration, the discretion to grant bail should be exercised in favor of the accused, particularly when parity is established with co-accused who are already on bail.
- Does the absence of a medical certificate regarding alleged injuries constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Can prolonged incarceration of an accused for five years justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the fact that a co-accused is on bail a relevant consideration for granting bail to the applicant?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J.---Heard learned counsel for the parties. Order dated 22-11-2005 of rejection of the bail application of the applicant Mukhtiar Ali passed by the trial Court states that the allegation was against the applicant to have fired his revolver on the person of Gulzar Sandeelo who thereby sustained fire-arm injuries on his left leg; learned counsel appearing for the State on going through the police papers states at the Bar that the said Gulzar Sandeelo was not referred to the medical officer for examination and certificate regarding his injury, nor such certificate is available in the police file; learned State counsel further states that because the applicant has continuously remained in jail for a period of about five year, therefore, he has got no objection if the applicant is admitted to bail, more particularly for the reason that co-accused is also on bail.
2. ' Looking at the fact that only one person is said to have suffered an injury, for whom medical certificate is not available for any such injury and also the facts that the applicant has remained in jail for a period of five years, he is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.