SHAHID and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by two applicants, Shahid and Razak, who were accused in an F.I.R. registered for offences under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants sought post-arrest bail, contending that they were falsely implicated due to enmity and noting that they were initially placed in Column-2 of the police challan before being subsequently challaned by the Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the grant of bail given the specific circumstances of the case, including the police investigation's initial findings and the precedent set by a cited unreported Supreme Court decision involving identical facts. The Court, noting the State's concession and the reliance on the cited Supreme Court precedent, held that the applicants were entitled to bail. The Court granted the application, directing the applicants to furnish surety in the amount of Rs. 500,000 each. The key principle established is that where the State concedes to bail based on binding precedent involving identical facts and circumstances, the court may exercise its discretion to grant bail.
- Can an accused be granted bail when the State concedes to the request based on identical factual precedents?
- Does the placement of an accused in Column-2 of the police challan provide grounds for the grant of bail?
- Is a court bound to follow the ratio of an unreported Supreme Court decision when the facts and circumstances are identical?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, J.---Applicants Shahid and Razak have filed this Application under sections 497/498 Cr.P.C. Seeking bail, who are required in F.I.R. Crime No,11 of 2008 registered at Police Station, Kumb, District Khairpur for offence under sections 302, 34, P.P.C.
2. ' In brief, the facts are that the case was initiated on an F.I.R. Lodged by Complainant Muhammad Ashfaq Arain on 25-8-2008 alleging therein that on 20-8-2008 he along with his brother Riaz alias Ranjho, cousin Muhammad Ishaque and relative Naveed left their village for the festival (Mella) of Qalander Shahbaz and they made pilgrimages. After few days viz on 28-8-2008 at sun-set time, the Complainant along with above named P. Ws. And his brother Muhammad Riaz alias Ranjho was standing together when accused namely Liaquat, Shafiq, Shahid (Applicant), Ghulam Hussain alias Kali and Razak (Applicant) had also come for pilgrimage. They asked Complainant's brother Muhammad Riaz to go with them for walking at, the road; hence his brother accompanied them and, thereafter, the Complainant party went to road. At about 8-p.m. They heard the cries of Muhammad Riaz alias Ranjho, on which, Complainant party went running there and saw the accused Shafiq, Kamboh, Shahid (Applicant) and Ghulam Hussain alias Kaloo caught hold of Complainant's brother Muhammad Riaz from his legs and arms and fell him down. Accused Liaqat who had knife in his hand, was cutting the throat of Muhammad Riaz while Razak (applicant) instigated other accused to murder him. Complainant party raised cries and accosted to refrain from murdering the person then the accused fled away. Complainant party went and saw that Muhammad Riaz was struggling on the ground and his throat was cut and was bleeding profusely and he had cut mark on the right side of cheek from which blood was oozing and within their sight he succumbed to his injuries. Hence the F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. ' Mr. Irshad Hussain Dharejo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants has contended that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity, which is admitted in the F.I.R. He has argued that the applicants were arrested on the next day of the incident. He has also argued that the police during the investigation let off the applicants/accused by showing their names in Column-2 of the Challan, but, subsequently, under the orders of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-II, Kotdiji, they were challaned and sent-up to face their trial in this case. In support of above contentions, he has cited an unreported case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Criminal Petition No,105-K of 2002 wherein, on similar facts and circumstances, bail was granted to an accused on 11-12-2002.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Mahar, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, has frankly conceded to the grant of bail in view of the unreported case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan referred to above.
5. ' I have heard the arguments of Mr .Irshad Hussain Dharejo, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Mahar, learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh for the State and with their assistance, I have also gone through material placed on record.
6. Keeping in view the no objection extended by the learned Assistant Advocate General and U.0 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan cited by the learned Counsel in support of his above contention, in which, on identical facts and circumstances, bail was granted to an accused, I allow this Application and grant bail to the applicants subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,500,000 (Rs,five lac only) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
7. ' Application stands disposed of the above terms.
Cited by 1 case
- HASIL and others vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 756