RAJIB vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Rajib, following the rejection of his bail plea by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Shikarpur, in relation to F.I.R. No. 22 of 2005, registered at Police Station Dakhan, District Shikarpur, for an alleged offence under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in denying bail based primarily on the applicant's alleged criminal history without verifying convictions. The High Court held that the trial court failed to apply its mind, as the F.I.R. did not disclose a criminal offence on its face, and past criminal records—without proof of conviction—do not constitute valid grounds for denying bail in a current case. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, emphasizing that mere allegations and unverified criminal history are insufficient to justify incarceration when the underlying charge lacks substance. The applicant was enlarged on bail subject to furnishing surety.
- Can a trial court deny bail solely based on an accused's past criminal record without evidence of conviction?
- Does an F.I.R. that fails to disclose a criminal offence on its face justify the detention of an accused?
- Is the consideration of past criminal cases a valid ground for refusing bail in the absence of conviction?
- Section 21, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.---From the contents of F.I.R. Crime No,22 of 2005, Police Station, Dakhan District Shikarpur, offence punishable under section 21/1; Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, it appears that no criminal offence is made out and in spite of that F.I.R.
2. Was lodged by the police. It is also surprising that on the basis of such allegation the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Shikarpur, has not applied its mind in this case and rejected the bail application considering his past criminal cases against the present accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge -III, Shikarpur, on bare statement of the prosecution has assumed that present applicant holds criminal record without considering the fact whether he was convicted in these offences or not. Needless to mention that past conviction is no ground to assume that the applicant is also involved in the reported crime which too on the face of it does not appear, to be a criminal offence. Under the circumstances, the applicant is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,25,000 with PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.