GHULAM HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail after arrest application filed by applicants Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Haneef in respect of Crime No. 60 of 2009 registered at Police Station Salehpat under sections 457 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances and discrepancies in the prosecution case. The court held that the prosecution story contained inherent improbabilities, notably that unarmed police officials apprehended armed accused persons, creating a clear dent in the prosecution's case and entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage. Consequently, the court allowed the application, holding that the applicants had made out a case for further inquiry into their guilt, and admitted them to post-arrest bail subject to surety. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions and implausible circumstances regarding the apprehension of armed accused by unarmed police create grounds for further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether implausible circumstances regarding the apprehension of armed accused by unarmed police create a dent in the prosecution case at the bail stage?
- Can contradictions in police statements entitle accused persons to the benefit of doubt for the purpose of post-arrest bail?
- When does a criminal case disclose grounds for further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SYED SHAFQAT ALI SHAH MASOOMI, J.---Applicants Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Haneef have filed this application seeking bail after arrest as who are required in Crime No,60 of 2009 Police Station, Salehpat registered for an offence under sections 457 and 380, P.P.C.
2. ' According to the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Kamal Shaikh on 31-5-2009 at 0810 hours it is alleged against the present applicants that they along with co-accused Ali Haider committed the theft of buffalo and on seeing the complainant and police party they left the buffalo and ran away and thereafter police arrested all the three; hence the F.I.R. Was lodged as stated.
3. ' Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants and learned APG for the State and also perused the material available on record.
4. From the perusal of F.I.R. It is an astonishing fact that A.S.-I Khalil Ahmed along with a police constables empty-handed reached at the place of occurrence and apprehended one of the accused who was armed with gun. The learned State counsel also stated that in the 161, Cr.P.C.
5. Statements the P.Ws. Have not stated that the A.S.-I. Khalil Ahmed along with police constables was armed with government weapons in such situation how they apprehended the accused though three of the accused were armed .With gun. Such fact create dent in the prosecution story and benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused at the bail stage.
6. ' For the foregoing reasons, the applicants have been able to make out a case of further enquiry into their guilt. I therefore, allow this application and admit the applicants to bail subject to their furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rs, One lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. ' However, the observations Made hereinabove are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of bail application and may not influence the mind of trial Court, which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to merits of the case.
8. ' Bail Application No,647 of 2009 stands disposed of along with listed-applications.