SHAMSULLAH alias HAWALDAR vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant, Shamsullah alias Hawaldar, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving murder. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether, given the lack of incriminating evidence and the failure of eye-witnesses to identify the accused, there existed reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty of the offence charged. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in the murder of the deceased during a robbery attempt, yet the applicant was not named in the First Information Report, and eye-witnesses refused to participate in identification proceedings. The Court held that in the absence of identification or other incriminating evidence, the case against the applicant fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, establishing the principle that where the prosecution fails to connect an accused to the crime through identification or other evidence, the case warrants further inquiry under the bail provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, entitling the accused to relief.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when eye-witnesses refuse to identify them during investigation?
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the First Information Report and the failure of witnesses to identify them constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- When does a criminal case qualify for 'further inquiry' under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.- Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned State counsel.
2. The latter does not oppose bail as the investigating agency has failed to collect any evidence against the applicant.
3. ' According to the prosecution, on 17-10-2006 at 2315 hours, four persons, armed with pistols, tried to snatch mobile phone from deceased Mishal Khan in the street in front of his house situated in Majeed Colony, Sector-II, Landhi, Karachi, and on his resistance they killed him by making fire on his right chest.
4. ' The matter was reported to police by his son Jehangir, who was informed on telephone about the incident. In his complaint he alleged that four unknown persons, due to some unknown enmity, had killed his father by making fires upon him. The F. I. R. Was registered on 18-10-2006 at 0145 hours, at Police Station, Quaidabad. On the same day three persons, namely, Muhammad Nafees, Raza Muhammad and Kamran stated before police that they had seen four persons, not previously known to them, running away from the place of incident immediately after the incident. The applicant was arrested on 20-10-2006 and a pistol was allegedly recovered from his possession.
5. The Investigating Officer tried to get the applicant identified but the eye-witnesses declined to identify him and declined to appear before the Magistrate.
6. ' In such circumstances, when the name of the applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. As well as in the statement of the eye-witnesses, and the eye-witnesses declined to identify him, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant guilty of the offence. The matter required only further inquiry as contemplated by subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the applicant is entitled to bail. He is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on giving one surety in the sum of Rs:2,00,000 and personal bond in the like amount to the trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- YAQOOB ALI and another vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 903
- MUHAMMAD ATIQ and 3 others vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 1136