AHMED NAWAZ vs THE STATE
This criminal bail application arises out of an FIR registered under section 392/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an armed robbery of mobile phone, gold necklace, and cash. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail when his identification by eyewitnesses was delayed by four days and no recovery was effected from him. The Sindh High Court held that the four-day delay by eyewitnesses in naming the applicant, coupled with the absence of any recovery of stolen property or weapon, brings the case within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that the absence of enmity with witnesses is not the sole guarantee of truth, and courts must evaluate evidence rather than being influenced by the prevalence of street crime when deciding bail matters.
- Whether delayed identification of an accused by eyewitnesses after four days makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the absence of enmity between prosecution witnesses and the accused the sole criterion for determining the truth of witness testimony at the bail stage?
- Can bail be refused to an accused merely on the ground that street crimes require to be dealt with sternly?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.- Heard Messrs Habibullah G. Ghori, Advocate for the applicant and Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, State Counsel. The later has opposed the bail application.
2. ' According to the prosecution, on 21-3-2006 at about 9-20 p.m. On Warrah- Ahmedi Tunio Link Road near house of Raza Muhammad Khwhawar, co-accused Gulbahar Buriro and two unknown persons robbed, on gun-point, complainant Maznoor Ali of his mobile telephone set worth Rs.
3. 15,000, a gold necklace worth Rs. 10,000 and cash of Rs.8,000, total amounting to Rs.33,000 in presence of his wife's brothers Jehangir and Abdul Karim. The matter was reported to Warrah Police situated at the distance of only one furlong on the same day at 2245 hours.
4. ' On 25-3-2006 i.e. After 4 days of the incident Jehangir and Abdul Karim stated before police that they had also identified applicant Ahmed Nawaz at the time of incident. On the basis of their such statement he was arrested but neither any weapon nor any stolen property was recovered from him. The trial Court has refused him bail mainly on the ground that there was nothing to show that the witnesses had enmity with him and that such type of street grimes required to be dealt with iron hands. Absence of enmity is not the only surety about truth of a witness and the Courts are required to go by evidence and do justice according to law and not to be much influenced by the rate of the crime which should primarily be the concern of police. The fact that Jehangir and Abdul Karim, who were with the complainant at the time of incident, did not claim, at that time, to have identified the applicant and made such claim for the first time after 4 days militates against the reasonableness of the ground put forward for believing the applicant guilty. The matter requires only further inquiry as contemplated by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C and the applicant is entitled to bail. He is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD MITHAL and 2 others vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 542