ABDUL RAHEEM vs THE STATE
This criminal bail application arises from an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Khairpur, denying bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 90 of 2010 registered at Police Station Tando Masti, involving offences under sections 324, 353, 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the alleged encounter and the nature of the evidence. The applicant contended that no injuries were caused, the case was one of further inquiry, and the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Assistant Prosecutor General did not seriously oppose the application, conceding that no injuries were sustained. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, finding the case to be one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted the application, admitting the applicant to bail subject to the furnishing of solvent surety and a personal bond to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does a case involving allegations of firing without causing any injury fall within the category of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is an offence punishable under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 always excluded from the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the impact of the prosecution's failure to seriously oppose a bail application on the court's decision?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---This criminal bail application arises against the order dated 3-6-2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur in Criminal Bail Application No,546 of 2010. The applicants are involved in Crime No, 90 of 2010 at Police Station Tando Masti District Khairpur under sections 324, 353, 427, 148 and 149, P. P. C
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that as per prosecution story encounter had taken place between the present applicant and police party. He says that no injury whatsoever has been caused to anyone. He says that police has implicated present applicant due to old enmity which has flashed in the newspaper. He further argued that this is a case of further enquiry as it is yet to be decided as to whether the present applicant was present at the scene or had fired upon police party. He also submits that case does not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And his case is of further inquiry and applicant be enlarged on bail as prayed for.
3. Learned APG has stated that it is admitted position that no injury has been caused. However; bullet marks could be found on the police van; he also submits that it is case of further enquiry.
Leaned APG has not seriously opposed the bail application.
4. In the circumstances, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of his solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (One Hundred thousand Only) and on execution of personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
' Application stands disposed of.