WAZIR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, Wazir, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to bail where he is named in the FIR but is alleged only to have fired in the air with no specific role of causing injury or looting, and where several co-accused have been placed in Column No.2 of the police report following investigation. The Sindh High Court held that the discrepancy between the complainant's version naming numerous persons and the police report placing several accused in Column No.2 creates reasonable doubt regarding the degree of participation and intention of the applicant. The court emphasized that the applicant's role was limited to ineffective firing in the air without causing any injury, bringing his case within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused person whose role is limited to ineffective firing in the air without causing injury is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the placement of several co-accused in Column No.2 of the police report create sufficient grounds for further inquiry regarding the participation of other accused persons?
- Whether the version of the complainant in the FIR can be accepted in toto when investigation reveals contradictions regarding the involvement of named accused persons?
ORDER
1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---Learned counsel submits that applicant has been involved falsely in this case. He submits that according to complainant 26 named persons participated in the crime but after investigation police did not agree with the versions and has shown Mahboob Ali, Liagat son of Ghulam Hyder Akbar, Abdul Jabbar and Iqbal in Column No.2. He submits that Mehmood has allegedly fired with K.K. Rifle on Sabal, brother of the complainant and caused his death but even then name of Mehmood is placed in Column No.2. He submits that some other persons, to whom, toto has been assigned are being let off by showing their names in Column No.2. He submits that applicant has allegedly fired in the air with no allegation of causing injury or any looting etc. Hence his case at the most can be of ineffective firing hence he may be admitted to bail. He has relied upon 2006 YLR 2497 and on unreported order passed in Criminal Bail Application No.3874 of 2006 (Ahmed v. The State).
2. ' On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State Counsel submits that name of the applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R. And he has participated in crime. However, he has not disputed that five persons named by complainant have been placed in Column No.2.
3. After hearing the learned counsel first thing which came to mind is that the version of the complainant cannot be taken in toto. He has named 26 persons with very specific roles but after investigation police has differed from the versions of the complainant and has named five persons in Column No.2. This situation creates a doubt to some extent in the involvement of each and every persons vis-a-vis then to participation in the crime well as the intention. Of course, Mahboob has been alleged in firing with K.K. Upon the brother of complainant who died due to injury but he has been named in Column No.2 with four other named persons. There is no specific role attributed to the applicant and he is alleged for firing in the air while the other accused were leaving after committing the crime on the case of the accused can be of ineffective firing whereas his guilt in respect to his participation in the alleged crime as well as severity of his act is to be determined after the further enquiry. In the circumstances applicant is enlarged to bail in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.