SHAHID ZARI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant, Shahid Zari, who is facing trial under section 393434 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with FIR No. 134 of 2007 registered at Police Station Saeedabad, Karachi. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including the lack of recovery from his possession and the absence of injuries attributed to him. The Sindh High Court evaluated the arguments presented by both parties, noting the concessions made by the State counsel regarding the absence of recoveries and prior convictions. The court held that the applicant has made out a case for the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where no recovery is effected from the accused, no injuries are attributed to him, and he has no past criminal record, he is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail pending trial.
- Whether an accused from whom no recovery has been effected and no injury attributed is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Can a bail application be granted when the accused has no previous criminal convictions?
- Section 393434, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ZIA PERWEZ, J.---Applicant, Shahid Zari is facing trial for an offence under section 393434, P.P.C.
Registered under F.I.R. No,134/2007 of P.S. Saeedabad, Karachi, seeks bail.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 8-6-2007 at about 10-30, the complainant and his friend Irfan came to corner of Cali and were about to sit, meanwhile four boys came there and started beating, out of them three put out pistols and one put out dagger said whatever the complainant and his friend have to handover to them. Upon cries neighbours came and grappled each other. The complainant received injury on his hand and with the help of police apprehended one accused Shahid Zari, who disclosed the names of his accomplices Baboo, Noor Bux and Amjad.
3. Heard learned counsel and perused the record. Contention of Mr. A. Karim Ayoob Memon, learned counsel for the applicant, is that no recovery has been effected from the possession of the present applicant and he is behind the bars since 9-6-2007. He has further argued that the complainant is inimical to the applicant and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He has relied upon the cases of Ali Nawaz v. The State (2001 YLR 341) and Tanveer Hussain alias Bhaiya v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 266).
4. The application is opposed by Mr. Muhammad Ayaz, learned State counsel, however, he concedes that neither there is any injury nor any empty has been recovered. The applicant is not past convict.
5. For the foregoing reason, the bail application is granted. The applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing his B solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.