IRSHAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court seeking post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 16 of 2006 registered at Police Station Taluka, Larkana, for offences involving an attempted robbery and subsequent fatal firing resulting in the death of a passenger. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail where he was not named in the initial first information report, his name was subsequently disclosed in statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, no recovery was effected from him, and the State conceded to the grant of bail. The court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail, particularly noting the delayed disclosure of his name, the absence of recoveries, and the concession by the State counsel. The court laid down that where an unnamed accused in an F.I.R. is implicated later through witness statements without any incriminating recovery and the State consents, bail may appropriately be granted.
- Is an accused not named in the initial first information report entitled to post-arrest bail when implicated later through subsequent witness statements?
- Does the absence of any recovery from an accused person support the grant of post-arrest bail?
- What is the effect of a concession made by the State counsel regarding the grant of bail to an accused?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.---In F.I.R. No,16 of 2006 of Taluka Police Station, Larkana, the applicant is not named.
2. When the F.I.R. Was registered it was stated that five unknown persons attempted to robe Qingqi rickshaw and as the rickshaw driver speeded away and refused to stop the five assailants fired upon the rickshaw which hit one of the passengers Mahboob Ali who died. Subsequently in 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the prosecution witnesses the name of the present applicant was disclosed to be one of the culprits. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant lives in the nearby village of the complainant and the prosecution witnesses and if they had seen him on the date of the incident his name ought to have been disclosed in the F.I.R. He says that it is an afterthought and the applicant has been wrongly implicated. No recovery had been affected from the present applicant. Learned State council also concedes to the grant of bail. In the circumstances the applicant is enlarged on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ALI SHER and others vs The STATE 2016 P Cr. L J 627