ABDUL LATIF alias MUSHTAQ alias MULLA vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of Crime No. 17 of 2005 registered under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Risala, concerning an armed bank dacoity. The core legal question was whether the subsequent statement of the complainant during trial, wherein he failed to identify or implicate the accused, constitutes a ground for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that since the complainant exonerated the applicant and did not connect him with the commission of the offence during his deposition, the case of the applicant fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The court laid down the principle that failure of the primary eyewitness to identify the accused at trial, altering the evidentiary landscape after an earlier bail refusal, can constitute fresh grounds for admitting the accused to post-arrest bail, subject to cancellation if further incriminating evidence is produced by the prosecution.
- Does the failure of the complainant to identify the accused during trial constitute sufficient ground for post-arrest bail under further inquiry?
- Can a repeated bail application be entertained when a material change in circumstances occurs after the rejection of an earlier bail plea?
- Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 497, Cr.P.C. when eyewitness testimony at trial exonerates him from the alleged offence?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.--- The applicant has repeated bail application under section 497, Cr.P.C: detained in Crime No,17 of 2005 under section 395, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Risala.
2. ' The necessary facts giving rise to the application are that the complainant Muhammad Sohail resident of Wat No,A-202, 2nd Floor, Madina View, Plot No,70, Block-2 , Karachi, lodged an F.I.R. On 24-2-2005, alleging therein that he was serving as Manager in Habib Bank Nanakwarra Branch. On the fateful day complainant, reached on his duty per routine, remained busy in his work. At about 0935 hours one boy wearing Shalwar Qameez entered in the cabin, inquired about share forms.
3. Complainant told him to receive form from counter, while returning back pointed pistol on guard Sher Dil and snatched his T.T. Pistol and asked him to raise hands, in the meanwhile few other culprits entered in his cabin on gun-point removed the movie cassette.
4. ' Complainant found that four more persons armed with T.T. Pistol were present in bank, out of them two snatched repeater gun from guard Gul Hassan and rest of two gathered all staff and clients on one side, the two persons who snatched repeater from guard, on show of force to cashier Muhammad Israfeel, pushed him away from his seat and put the cash Rs,29,50,400 in plastic bag ran away along with cash, T.T. Pistol, Repeater and Movie Cassette, towards Nishtar Road in a Suzuki white. Car No,351 and Motorcycle Honda 125, threw the Repeater, after covering distance from Bank.
5. All five culprits were young armed with pistols First Information Report was lodged case was up for investigation.
6. ' The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that in pursuance of order, dated 29-11-2005, passed by this Court rejecting the bail application, the trial Court had recorded the statement of complainant Muhammad Sohail on 20-12-2005. It is pointed out that the complainant did not recognize the applicant during trial on the premises that due to rush of general public in the bank, it appears from the cross-examination of the aforesaid witness, that the robbed amount of Rs,29,50,400 or any part thereof was not produced at the time of recording of the complainant's evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that on account of position emerged after the recording of the statement of the complainant by the trial Court, the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail.
7. ' Learned counsel appearing for the State has candidly conceded, that the prosecution shall examine witnesses, namely, Gul Hassan, Sher Wali, Muhammad Israfeel and Noor Jamal in case they implicate the applicant in the charge/offence, bail awarded to the applicant be cancelled.
8. ' I have heard arguments advanced at bar.
9. The applicant's bail plea was earlier rejected, consequent thereupon the statement of the complainant was recorded by the trial Court, who had exonerated the applicant, neither identified him nor connected him in commission of the offence of bank dacoity, which indicates that the case of the applicant requires further inquiry.
10. ' In the light of the above circumstances, applicant Abdul Latif alias Mushtaq alias. Mulla son of Haji Mir Muhammad is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In case prosecution succeeds in producing incriminating evidence trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAH MURAD vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 708