KAMRAN alias KAMI vs THE STATE
This bail application arose out of an FIR registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the murder of a victim via firearm injuries. The primary legal issue before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail on the ground that the prosecution's case required further inquiry. The Court observed substantial discrepancies and unexplained omissions in the prosecution record: the FIR omitted the names of purported eyewitnesses and details of motorcycles allegedly left at the crime scene, despite police memos indicating their presence earlier; the statements of eyewitnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were recorded with an unexplained delay of three days; and the applicant was not named until several days after the incident. Furthermore, the identification parade conducted after an unexplained delay lacked evidentiary weight. The Court held that sound and satisfactory evidence is required to connect an accused with a crime, making it a fit case for further inquiry, and granted bail.
- Whether unexplained delay in recording statements of alleged eyewitnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 creates doubt entitling an accused to bail under the doctrine of further inquiry?
- Whether an identification parade held with unexplained delay carries sufficient evidentiary weight to connect an accused with a capital offence at the bail stage?
- Whether material omissions in the initial FIR and contradictions in investigation memos make out a case of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Granted.
2. Applicant Kamran alias Kami son of Muhammad Yousuf, who has been involved in a case under section 324/302/ 34, P.P.0 under Crime No,136 of 2007 has moved this bail application.
1. ' Facts of the case as incorporated in the F.I.R. Registered on 25-7-2007 are that one Shafi Muhammad son of Haji Muhammad Qayyum on 26-7-2007 at 0145 hours reported that on 25-7- 2007 when he was sleeping at his house his son Waseem aged about 10/12 years informed him that his nephew Mehboob All son of Mir Muhammad had received bullet injuries. He had been taken to hospital. Complainant immediately went to hospital and there he came to know that one Jamal resident of Khadda Market along with 5/6 companions due to personal dispute had caused fire- arm injuries to his nephew Mehboob Ali. On the basis of this information matter was investigated and this applicant along with four more persons was challaned.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant while referring the contents of F.I.R. Recorded on 26-7-2007 along with memo of site inspection prepared by A.S.-I. Manzoor on 25-7-2007 has argued that false and frivolous case has been registered againsi this applicant, which is apparent from the contents of both these documents. According to him as per contents of "memo of recovery of empties and blood-stained earth" prepared on 25-7-2007 number of motorcycles on which culprits came at the place of incident do find place, which according to prosecution were left by them at the place of incident. He further pointed out that as per subsequent documents prepared as "memo of site inspection" on 27-7-2007 after two days of the incident, names of two eye-witnesses namely Soomar and Muhammad Tariq have been added. If for the sake of argument, prosecution's case as pleaded is taken as correct then no reason is appearing of not mentioning the names of these two eye-witnesses and the numbers of motorcycles said to be left by the culprits and found at the place of incident in the F.I.R. Registered a day later to the date of incident.
3. ' In reply to the document referred above, it is contended by learned counsel for the complainant as well as State counsel that names of eye-witnesses and numbers of motorcycles left by culprits could not be mentioned in the F.I.R as A.S.-I. Manzoor Hussain immediately after receiving information through '15' had rushed to place of incident and could not find out the names of the eye-witnesses. Though authenticity of document prepared on 25-7-2007 in view of evidence placed on record appears to be doubtful because neither any entry of departure of A.S.-I. Manzoor Hussain to the place of incident has been placed on record nor there is anything on record to show that by that time A.S.-1. Manzoor Hussain was entrusted investigation of this case. Apart from statement of A.S.-I. Manzoor Hussain that he went at the place of incident on intimation received through '15', again becomes doubtful when P.W. Muhammad Ayub in his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement stated that police present at hospital had gone with him at place of incident and collected empties and blood-stained earth.
4. It is also worthy to note that before 28-7-2007 the name of this applicant does not find place in any of the documents prepared by the Investigating Officer Prosecution had tried to improve its case placing two persons namely Soomar Tariq as eye-witnesses of the incident these two persons are taken as e witnesses then also question arose that spite of their own statements that they 1 taken injured to hospital and were pres at hospital when police came there recorded the statement of prosecut witnesses why statements of these t persons were not recorded and were for 28-7-2007 after three days of incident.
5. Even after arrest of this applicant on 6-8-2007 identification parade was held on 13-8-2007 with no reason of delay in holding the same, genuineness of this identification parade further become doubtful as according to prosecution both these so-called eye-witnesses Soomar and Tariq had identified the applicant as culprit but in view of above discussion this identification parade cannot be given too much weight.
6. 'Whereas learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have not been able to reply the discrepancies pointed out in the investigation of the case and also in the F.I.R.
7. ' No doubt in the incident happened on 25-7-2007 a person had lost his life but to involve a person without any satisfactory evidence is not requirement of law. Sound and satisfactory evidence is required to charge and connect a person with the commission of offence, which in the present case at the moment is not appearing on record.
8. In view of foregoing reasons, I find that it is a case of further enquiry and applicant has been able to make out a case for grant of bail. Applicant is allowed to be released on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,500,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus State 2010 PCrLJ 1868