FARUKH FARAZ vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Farukh Faraz, who was charged in Crime No.208 of 2006 under sections 353 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by Police Station Ferozeabad. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given his prior acquittal in the connected car-snatching case and the absence of any injuries to police personnel during the alleged encounter. The Sindh High Court held that since the initial car-snatching charge had resulted in an acquittal that was not appealed by the State, and no police official was injured in the subsequent encounter, the case against the applicant fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that when the foundational predicate offense of a criminal episode fails or results in an acquittal, the connected penal charges require further inquiry, making the accused a proper subject for the concession of bail.
- Whether an accused acquitted of a predicate car-snatching offense is entitled to bail in a connected encounter case?
- Does the absence of injuries to police personnel during an alleged encounter warrant further inquiry under criminal law?
- Can bail be granted when the primary allegation forming the basis of the first portion of a crime remains unproved?
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Through this application the applicant Farukh Faraz who has been charged in Crime No.208 of 2006 tinder sections 353/324, P.P.C. By Police Station Ferozeabad seeks post- arrest bail.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts as appear from record are that one Asif Mehmood Constable of Police Station New Town sent a written report on 13-3-2006 stating therein that he was on duty when a person namely Mohsin Shafi came to him at about ' 10-35 a.m. And informed that two young boys have snatched his car bearing Registration No.5674 make Honda Civic. On such information the culprits were chased on motorcycle along with informer Mohsin Shafi who later was dropped at police station to lodge the F.I.R., whereas the chase was continued by Police Constable Asif.
3. Mehmood along with Waseem Shah and Shahab Dad. The said car was detected near National College by no sooner the culprits saw the police they started firing and consequently after an encounter one of the accused died and the other was injured and consequently arrested.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the injured applicant that upon complaint of Moshin Shafi bearing No.47 of 2006, under sections 392/397/P.P.C. For the theft of said car was registered and after regular trial of the said case before the learned, Vth Additional District Judge (South) the applicant was acquitted and the State has not filed any appeal against such acquittal. It was further contended that no police personnel was injured in the alleged encounter and the allegations against the present applicant are general in nature. It is further contended that the application of section 324 is misconceived. In the circumstances, the learned counsel has prayed that since the car snatching is not proved against the applicant, therefore, the police has to justify the F.I.R. And consequently the applicant is at least entitled to the concession of bail at this juncture.
5. ' Learned State counsel was not able to contradict the facts as narrated above though he has opposed the grant of bail.
6. ' In the circumstances when the car theft is not proved against the present applicant and he has been acquitted in Crime No.47 of 2006 and as per State counsel no appeal against the acquittal in Crime No.47 of 2006 has been filed by the State. No Police Official was injured during the alleged encounter, therefore, I am of the view that since the first portion of the crime viz. Car snatching could not be proved therefore, the second portion of the crime becomes a case of further inquiry and the applicant become entitle to the concession of bail.
7. ' Consequently the applicant is admitted to bail upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.