NAVEED AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the High Court through a bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail in respect of Crime No. 201 of 2006 registered at Police Station F.I.A. PP under Section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance 1979. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to bail where the prosecution case rests solely on the uncorroborated statements of co-accused without any recovery of incriminating material or independent witnesses. The Court held that the case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the applicant under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution presented no tangible evidence or recovery from the applicant's possession, and consequently allowed the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where an accused's implication is based merely on statements of co-accused without independent corroboration or recovery, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution case relies solely on the uncorroborated statements of co-accused?
- Does the absence of any recovery of incriminating material or independent mashirs warrant further inquiry into the guilt of an accused under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an offence under Section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 justifies withholding bail in the absence of tangible evidence during investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22(b), Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.--By this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Applicant has moved this Court for grant of bail in Crime No,201 of 2006 Police. Station F.I.A. PP, wherein he has been charged with the of commission of offence punishable under section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979.
2. In a nutshell, case of the prosecution is that the applicant along with two other persons, Shoaib Murtaza son of Ghulam Murtaza and Muhammad Latif son of Abdul Aziz, was apprehended while boarding in the bus, bound for Mand Billo. The applicant had demanded Rs,20,000 each from other two accused and received Rs,3,000 each from them on the pretext that he will sent them illegally to Iran without any travelling contuments. The arrest of the applicant and other two accused was shown in presence of personal of F.I.A., while, as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, neither the alleged tickets for the bus bound for Mand Billo nor any amount was recovered from him.
3. The applicant was arrested on 13-4-2006 and since then he is in custody. According to the learned counsel he has been falsely implicated in the crime, which is evident from non-recovery of any ticket or money or any other incriminating material from his possession. Even the F.I.A. Staff did not bother to take any independent Mashir for the alleged arrest of the applicant and other accused from Lea Market Karachi of Mand Billo bound bus. He further contended that mere insertion of section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 in the column of nature of offence in the F.I.R., will not justify premature conclusion that applicant is guilty of such an offence, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), in view of the quantum for punishment provided in the statute. He lastly contended that case of the applicant as to his guilt, in the given facts and circumstances, needs further inquiry as there if nothing incriminating against him with the prosecution, except the statements of co-accused, which may be either managed one or obtained under duress.
4. Syed Tariq Ali learned Federal counsel could not controvert the submissions of Mr. Muneer Ahmed Banbhan, that the arrest of applicant is based only on the statements of co-accused before the staff of F.I.A., having no evidential value, while no incriminating material was recovered from his possession during the investigation and both the Mashir of arrest are also staff members of F.I.A.
5. After careful examination of the case record, I am of the opinion that the case of applicant, based on mere statements of co-accused, without any tangible evidence against him, needs further inquiry as to his guilt, which makes him entitled for admission on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed. Applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- BABAR FAROOQ Versus State 2017 YLRN 313