QUDRAT ALI KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Qudrat Ali Khan, who was implicated in a robbery case following an incident where Rs. 7,00,000 was allegedly snatched at gunpoint. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of specific naming in the F.I.R., the contention of enmity between the parties, the alleged non-compliance with statutory recovery procedures, and the slow progress of the trial. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution's case required further evidence to establish guilt, particularly as only three out of eleven witnesses had been examined, and the material facts against the applicant remained unsubstantiated at this stage. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case against an accused is not supported by sufficient material evidence at the pre-trial stage and the trial is significantly delayed, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail, especially when the recovery proceedings are ambiguous.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the F.I.R. does not specifically name them and the prosecution's evidence is incomplete?
- Does the failure to comply with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding recovery proceedings constitute grounds for the grant of bail?
- Should bail be granted when only a small fraction of prosecution witnesses have been examined and the accused has been incarcerated for a significant period?
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
' MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.---Case of prosecution is that on 6-5-2006, it was reported by driver of Al-Shafiq Goods Company that after encashment of Rs.7,40,000 from M.C.B. Hawksbay Road, Truck Adda from the account of Al-Shafiq Goods Company when he reached near Gate No.6 of Al-Shafiq Goods Company two persons after getting down from one white car came to him and on gun- point snatched Rs.7,00,000 whereas the amount of Rs.40,000 which was lying in the pocket of Shalwar of the complainant was saved.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that names of this applicant or the other culprits have not been specifically names in the F.I.R. He further contended that the present F.I.R. Is outcome of enmity in between this applicant and the complainant as appearing from the record and section 103, Cr.P.C. Had not been complied with. He further pointed out that applicant in a case under F.I.R. No.67 of 2005 wherein this applicant was arrested on a charge under section 13-D of Arms Ordinance had been acquitted vide judgment, dated 25-11-2005. Even otherwise, from the Mashirnama as placed on record it is not clear that whether it was prepared in F.I.R. No. 67 of 2005 or in the present case. The point in question involved in the matter of robbery requires evidence.
Out of eleven witnesses only three had shown to have been examined. Hence no material facts have been brought on record against the applicant at this stage.
3. Under these circumstances the applicant who is behind the bars since, 2005 is allowed to be released on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of Trial Court.