ALI SHER vs THE STATE
This matter arises from an application for post-arrest bail filed by Ali Sher against the State, concerning charges of armed robbery and subsequent death resulting from a missed gunshot fired by a private chowkidar during pursuit. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry given the delay in disclosing his identity and the lack of recovery. The Sindh High Court held that where the principal witness delayed naming the applicant for four days without explanation, the applicant was not subjected to an identification parade despite multiple eyewitnesses, and no incriminating recovery was made, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay in disclosing the accused's identity coupled with the absence of identification parades and recoveries warrants the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
- Does an unexplained four-day delay in disclosing an accused's name by a complainant make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no recovery of the robbed property or weapon is effected from him?
- Does the failure to hold an identification parade where multiple eyewitnesses are present justify the grant of bail?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J. Heard Messrs Nisar Ahmed Abro, Advocate for applicant and Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, State counsel. The latter has no objection to the grant of bail.
2. ' The allegation against the applicant is that on 26-8-2006 at about 8-30 p.m. He along with one unidentified robber, armed with pistols, robbed on gun point, prosecution witness Mushtaq Ahmed of his mobile telephone set in old Bazar, Mehar, while he was on his way to his house. They were chased by accused. Khalid, Chowkidar of the town, who fired at them with his gun but the fire missed the target and hit complainant Ghulam Shabir's brother Sikander Ali and P.W. Imran. At that time complainant Ghulam Shabir. Wazir, Muhammad Hassan and Abdul Lateef were present there and had witnessed the incident. Deceased Sikander Ali succumbed the same day. The matter was reported to police on the next day i.e, on 27-8-2006, at 2-00 p.m. The present applicant was not put to the identification of complainant Ghulam Shabir and other witnesses, namely, Wazir, Muhammad Hassan, Abdul Lateef and Imran. However, after four days of the incident i.e, on 30-8- 2006, Musthaq Ahmed stated before police that he has identified one of the robbers to be the present applicant. He has not assigned any plausible explanation for ,not disclosing his name for four days. Neither the robbed mobile phone set nor any weapon was recovered from the applicant.
3. In such circumstances, where Mushtaque Ahmed did not disclose the applicant's name to anybody for four days and the applicant was not put to the identification of the above mentioned five witnesses, namely, complainant Ghulam Shabir, Wazir, Muhammad Hassan, Abdul Lateef and Imran, who had seen the robbers while being chased by accused Khalid and neither the robbed property nor any weapon was recovered from, him, the case of the applicant requires further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and therefore, he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- FARRUKH SHEHZAD vs THE STATE 2012 P Cr. L J 352
- SHAUKAT vs THE STATE 2012 P Cr. L J 357