TAJ MUHAMMAD alias TAJAN vs THE STATE, through A.A.G.
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant, Taj Muhammad alias Tajan, who is accused of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the allegation that the deceased was last seen in the company of the applicant and others before his body was discovered, and the existence of incriminating statements by witnesses. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the applicant was specifically named in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and implicated by prosecution witnesses in statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, establishing sufficient grounds for further inquiry rather than immediate release. The court distinguished the applicant's case from the cited precedent, finding no grounds for bail.
- Is an accused person entitled to bail when they are specifically named in the F.I.R. and implicated by witness statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the principle of consistency mandate the grant of bail if a co-accused has been granted bail in the same case?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, J.---Applicant Taj Muhammad alias Tajan has filed this Application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Seeking bail, who is required in F.I.R. Crime No,79 of 2007 registered at Police Station, Sohhodero, District Khairpur, for an offence under section 302/34, P.P. C .
2. ' In brief, the facts leading to this bail application are that the case was initiated on an F.I.R. Lodged by Complainant Nawab Chano on 15-6-2007 alleging therein that on 14-6-2007 at 10 pm Taj Muhammad (Applicant), co-accused Dost Ali and two unknown persons took away his son Abdul Rasheed from the house with them, in presence of Complainant, Dur Muhammad and Warrayal alias Allah Warrayo and thereafter his son did not return. He started searching and ultimately he found the dead body of Abdul Rasheed lying in the land of Mehar Chano. Complainant party took the foot prints from the place of murder, which ended in the house of Taj Muhammad (Applicant); hence the F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. ' Mr. Shaukat Ali Phul, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant contended that the applicant is innocent and has been involved in this case falsely due to enmity, which has been admitted by the Complainant in the F.I.R. He argued that this is a unseen and un-witnessed incident as there is no direct evidence against the Applicant to saddle him with the liability of murder of deceased Abdul Rasheed. He added that co-accused Qaimuddin has already been granted bail by the trial court, therefore, on the basis of principle of rule of consistency also the Applicant is entitled to bail. In support of above contention he relied upon the case of Ramzan v.
4. The State 2007 PCr.LJ 1572 and requested for the release of Applicant on bail as the case calls further enquiry.
5. ' Mr. Agha Ather Hussain, learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed to the grant of bail on the ground that the Applicant is specifically named in the F.I.R.; that he along with other co-accused in presence of Complainant and other P.Ws. Took Abdul Rasheed from the house at 10 pm night and thereafter deceased did not return to his house; that the P.Ws. Allah Warrayo alias Warrayal and Dur Muhammad, in their statements, have fully implicated present applicant. He stated that applicant does not deserve bail; hence this Application be rejected.
6. ' Heard the arguments of Mr. Shaukat Ali Phul, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Agha Ather. Hussain, learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh appearing on behalf of the State and with their assistance I have perused the material available on record.
7. It is an admitted position that present applicant along with other co-accused Dost Ali and two unknown persons, in presence of the Complainant, P. Ws. Dur Muhammad and Warrayal alias Allah Warrayo took away deceased Abdul Rasheed (son of the Complainant) from the house at about 10 pm (night) and thereafter deceased did not return to his house and on search, his dead body was found lying in the land of Mehar Chano. The above named P.Ws in their statements recorded under sections 161, Cr.P.C. As well as 164, Cr . P. C . , have fully implicated the present applicant in this case.
8. The case law cited above, is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
9. No case for bail is made out.
10. ' Consequently, I dismiss the Bail Application.
11. ' These are the reasons of my order, dated 4-11-2008, whereby I dismissed the Bail Application.