KHADIM HUSSAINApplicant vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Khadim Hussain, who was accused of attempting to snatch a rifle from a police constable while in custody at the premises of the Court of the 2nd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sehwan. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances and the lack of independent witnesses, the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The applicant contended that the F.I.R. was false and that it was implausible for a person in police custody to attempt such an act. The State conceded that the attempt was unsuccessful and that the matter required further inquiry. The Court observed that no private witnesses were cited and that other co-accused had already been granted bail. Holding that the case required further inquiry, the Court allowed the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on allegations requiring further investigation and lacks independent corroboration, and where co-accused have been granted bail, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's allegations require further inquiry and lack independent witness corroboration?
- Does the fact that co-accused have already been granted bail influence the court's decision to grant bail to a subsequent applicant in the same matter?
ORDER
1. ' MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.---On 12-5-2007 it was reported by H.C. Amanullah of Police Station Sehwan that Police had brought applicant along with other accused in Court for trial of cases and when they were sitting in front of the Court of 2nd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sehwan accused Khadim Hussain all of a sudden tried to snatch the rifle of a P.C. Bund Ali while other accused Khadim Hussain started abusing and threatening the person standing near to them.
2. However, Police party controlled both the accused persons. On inquiry he came to know the person whom threat of killing was given was from the rival party. As there was law and order situation, therefore, after the grant of learned Trial Court they had taken accused persons under the guard and brought them at jail. The incident was informed to superior officer and report was lodged.
3. ' Mr. Hidayatullah Abbasi, learned counsel for the applicant argued that on the face of it the contents of F.I.R. Does not appear to be correct as the person in custody of a police could not be supposed to be much courageous to snatch a rifle of a P.C. No evidence is appearing on record that he has snatched the rifle of P.C. Bund. Ali and had committed any offence with it. False F.I.R.
4. Has been registered against him. No eye-witness of incident is available with the prosecution for the alleged incident.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, learned counsel for the State has conceded to the fact that attempt to snatch the rifle was made but applicant could not succeed in his attempt and it is a case of further inquiry.
6. Two accused persons have already been granted bail in the matter. The allegation against this applicant is that he had attempted to snatch the rifle from the police personnel who was on duty and as such he had interrupted him in performance of his official duty but still the point requires consideration. No private witness said to be found at spot have been cited as witness.
7. ' In view of the above reasons, applicant is allowed to be enlarged on bail, he be released if not required in any other case subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.