MUHAMMAD DILSHAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Dilshad, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail in this secondary case, given that he had already been granted bail in the primary case (Crime No. 437 of 2008, arising from the same transaction). The applicant argued that since bail was granted in the main case, it should follow in the offshoot case. The Additional Prosecutor-General conceded that withholding bail in such offshoot cases is the exception rather than the rule, particularly when the offense is not punishable by more than three years. The Sindh High Court allowed the application and granted bail to the accused. The court affirmed the principle that when an accused is granted bail in the main case, bail should generally be granted in cases arising out of the same transaction, as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
- Is an accused entitled to bail in an offshoot case if bail has already been granted in the main case arising from the same transaction?
- Does the grant of bail in a main case create a presumption in favor of bail for related cases arising from the same transaction?
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' ,MUHARRAM G. BALOCH, J.--- 1. Granted.
2. Through this application, applicant/accused, Muhammad Dilshad son of Muhammad Irfan, requests for his enlargement on bail in Crime No,437 of 2008 registered under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance of Police Station Jamshed Quarters, Karachi.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been granted bail in Crime No,436 of 2008 registered under section 392/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Jamshed Quarters, Karachi, vide order dated 15-12-2008 by the learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Karachi East. According to him, the applicant has been granted bail in the main case and the offshoot of the said is F.I.R.
3. No,437 of 2008 which is under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance. He further submits that as a rule when the bail is granted in the main case then bail cannot be withheld in the cases arising out of the same transaction of crime such as under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance. He further submits that both the trial Court and the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge have not taken into consideration the above fact that the applicant has been granted bail in the main case and on the contrary it was opined by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge that such order is not binding on that Court.
4. ' Learned Additional Prosecutor-General at the very outset, submits that the bail could have been granted to the applicant in a case of 13-D, Arms Ordinance on the ground that it was the offshoot of the main case and that the same is not punishable for more than three years. He further submits that withholding the bail in such cases is exception and grant of bail is a rule. Therefore, he frankly conceded to the grant of bail application.
5. ' Consequently, the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs,30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- SALAM alias TOOR JAN vs The STATE 2013 P Cr. L J 1461
- ABDUL QADIR vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 957