RIND and another vs THE STATE
This matter involves two criminal bail applications filed by the applicants Rind and Shabir seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 11 of 2008 registered at Police Station Sarhad for offences including murder and attempt to commit murder. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail in view of contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the place of the incident, uncertainty concerning the attribution of the fatal injury between multiple accused, and the absence of recovery of crime weapons. The court held that the bail applications should be allowed, establishing that contradictions regarding the scene of the crime creating confusion and uncertainty over specific fatal attribution make out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence, thereby entitling the accused to bail.
- Does a contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the place of the incident make out a case of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Whether bail can be granted when there is uncertainty regarding the attribution of a fatal injury among multiple co-accused?
- Does the absence of recovery of crime weapons during investigation justify releasing the accused on bail at the pre-trial stage?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.---By this order, I intend to dispose of Cr. Bail Applications Nos.258 and 348 of 2008 filed by applicants Rind and Shabir, in crime No,11 of 2008 of Police Station Sarhad.
2. 'Case of the prosecution is that on 3-2-2008 when complainant along with his cousin Hidayatullah and nephew Kambar Ali was sitting in his house, both these accused persons along with their six more companions named in the F.I.R., duly armed with weapons entered into his house and on account of some dispute previously happened, on the instigation of applicant Rind, accused Yaseen fired with K.K. On complainant with intention to kill him which hit on his forehead and accused Zahoor fired with K.K. On the wife of complainant Mst. Zareena, who also received injuries.
3. Accused Mitho and Sher also gave hatchet blows to complainant's wife, who subsequently succumbed.
4. ' It is contended by learned counsel for applicant Rind that only allegation against this applicant is of instigation, to other culprits who caused injuries to the complainant and his wife. Referring to report of AIGP CR and Investigation, Sukkur region made on 15-3-2008 to the AIGP (Investigation), Karachi, it is contended by learned counsel that AIGP CR and Investigation, Sukkur in his report observed that the case is false and frivolous and has recommended for disposal of it as cancelled case. But further papers in the matter show that it was not accepted by the learned Magistrate, therefore, challan was submitted.
5. It is further contended by learned counsel that the versions of complainant and prosecution witnesses, who are said to be in company of complainant at the time of incident, are contradictory to each. According to complainant incident took place in his house whereas P. Ws. Hidayatullah and Kambar are not confident as to the place of happening of incident. In first part of their 161, Cr .P.C. Statements, it was deposed that incident took place at the house of complainant whereas in second part of their statements, they deposed that incident took place in their respective houses. If statements of all three persons are considered it create confusion as to the place of incident, which make-out a case of further enquiry.
6. ' Learned A.A-G. Opposing the grant of bail to applicant Rind stated that he was absconder, therefore, is not entitled for the grant of bail, but these arguments of learned A.A-G. In view of date of arrest of applicant on 14-2-2008 i.e, after about 11 days of incident does not have any weight therein.
7. ' So far as the case of applicant Shabir is concerned, though in the F.I.R. Specific role of him along with co-accused Mitho causing hatchet injuries to complainant's wife is there, but according to learned counsel for applicant Shabir, as per medical report injury No,4 has been, disclosed as cause of death bf Mst. Zareena. It is stated by him that in presence of two persons it is hard to say that the said injury was caused by whom. Formally it can be assumed that it was common intention of both applicants, but in view of contradictory version of complainant and his witnesses about place of incident at this stage and having no evidence of recovery of crime weapon, no definite opinion against to any person can be formed.
8. ' Accordingly, these bail applications are allowed. Applicants are allowed to be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,500.000 (Five lacs) each with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.