BIJAR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from an application for post-arrest bail in a case of highway robbery registered as Crime No. 22 of 2006 at Police Station Sardar Ghulam Sarwar Sarki, District Kashmore alias Kandhkot. The applicant, Bijar Nandwani, was not named in the FIR or in the initial police statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, but was subsequently arrested and identified during an identification parade. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail when the complainant and prosecution witnesses have sworn affidavits before the trial court stating they did not see the applicant at the scene of the crime, and the State concedes the grant of bail. The court held that a case for further inquiry is made out under the circumstances and granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing surety. The key principle laid down is that where material prosecution witnesses exonerate an accused through affidavits and the State concedes, a case for further inquiry is established warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused not named in the FIR and identification parade can be granted bail when prosecution witnesses file affidavits stating they did not see the accused at the crime scene?
- Does a concession of bail by the State counsel in light of favorable witness affidavits make out a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. FAISAL ARAB, J.--An F.I.R. For highway robbery was lodged as Crime No,22 of 2006 at Police Station, Sardar Ghularn Sarwar Sarki, District Kashmore alias Kandhkot on 1-6-2006. The present applicant Bijar Nandwani is not named in the F.I.R. Nor he was named in 161, Cr.P.C. Statements which were recorded on the next day. Subsequently on 12-6-2006 the applicant was arrested by police as one of the unnamed suspects in the above- mentioned crime. He was put to identification parade on 14-6-2006 and identified as one of the accused persons. Subsequently complainant Muhammad Siddique and P.Ws. Pir Bux and Mansab have sworn affidavits before trial Court to the effect that they have not seen the present applicant at the scene of the crime. This fact has been confirmed by learned State counsel and states that he concedes to the grant of bail as the case for further enquiry is made out. In the circumstances the applicant is enlarged on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.