SALEH alias MUHAMMAD SALEH vs THE STATE
This matter arises from two bail applications filed by accused applicants involved in a criminal case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in view of a reinvestigation report declaring them innocent. The Sindh High Court held that where an investigating officer during reinvestigation finds the accused innocent and there is a lack of supporting material evidence connecting them to the crime, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, warranting the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that the findings of innocence in a police reinvestigation report must be properly weighed and considered by courts when evaluating bail applications, rather than solely relying on initial nominations in the First Information Report.
- Whether an accused found innocent during a police reinvestigation is entitled to bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be denied solely on the ground that the names of the accused are mentioned in the First Information Report when subsequent investigation points to their innocence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ZAFAR AHMED KHAN SHERWANI, J.--- Heard learned counsel for the applicants in both the bail applications which are outcome of one and the same F.I.R.
2. ' These two accused/applicants have been involved by the police in the above mentioned F.I.R.
3. Bearing Crime No.4 of 2006 of Police Station Ameenani under section 302, 34, P.P.C.
4. ' The above mentioned F.I.R. Was lodged by one Muhammad Bux on 6-7-2006 at about 4-15 p.m. In respect of incident of murder of his son Rab Dino on 5-7-2006 at about 1-45 p.m. The complainant has alleged that he along with relatives were sleeping in his Otaq when these two applicants along with other nominated accused entered therein who were armed with hatchets and they started giving sharp sided hatchet blows to his son on different parts of his body. They were identified by him on the bulb light. He also stated that when he challenged the culprits, he was also given hatchet blow from reverse side of the hatchet by accused Abdul Ghafoor on his forehead. However, the accused succeeded in decamping and thereafter the injured was removed first to the Police Station and then to the Hospital at red cross, Civil Hospital, Hyderabad where he died on account of injuries.
5. ' The allegation against accused/applicant Saleh that he had instigated co-accused to cause murder of son of complainant on account of previous enmity.
6. ' Learned counsel for both the accused/applicants contended that on application from the wife of accused/applicant Mithal, the matter was reinvestigated under the orders of D.I.-G. Police by the S.P. Investigation branch of District Dadu, who got the case reinvestigated by S.I.P. Abdullah Buriro and as per report of the said officer, which is enclosed with these bail applications, the real culprit was accused more, who was also nominated in the F.I.R. And was arrested and was along with his accomplice namely Shahoo Khokhar and the cause of murder was that the deceased had committed sodomy upon him twice, therefore, he taken revenge from him with the help of his friend but other co-accused were nominated by the father of the deceased with mala fide intention. He further submits that although the name of accused/ applicant Mithal alias Muhammad Mithal was not mentioned in the supplementary Challan but later on his name was mentioned in the final Challan although there was no evidence against him. He contended that in view of the reinvestigation report of the case, both the accused/ applicants were found innocent, therefore, their arrest by the police is illegal and they are required to be released on bail under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. ' The learned counsel for the State submitted that he has no objection if the accused/applicant Saleh is granted bail because there was no specific role assigned to him in the F.I.R. By the complainant except that he had instigated the other accused. However, he opposed bail application of accused/applicant Mithal on the ground that he has been nominated in the F.I.R.
8. With specific role in the commission of offence. However, he has not denied the reinvestigation of the case and report of the Investigating Officer in which these two accused were found innocent, which has been referred to above.
9. ' I have very carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel and perused the record in the light of above arguments. I have reached to the conclusion that the case of the applicants is fit for grant of bail under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. As both the accused were found innocent by the Investigating Officer during the investigation conducted on the orders of the D.I.G.
10. (Operation), Hyderabad and S.P. (Investigation) Dacha but the police showed their names in the challan;' although no material evidence was against them connecting them with the commission of the offence. Learned trial Court while rejecting the bail application has not considered this aspect of the case and rejected the bail application on flimsy ground that their names are mentioned in the F.I.R.
11. ' In view of above facts and circumstances, the applicants are granted bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- HASIL and others vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 756
- HABIB and another vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 1459