GHULAM HYDER RIND vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case where the applicant sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered in 2005. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the prolonged incarceration of over four years, material contradictions between the ocular evidence and medical reports, and the complainant's deposition disowning the F.I.R. contents. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the significant discrepancies between the prosecution's ocular version and the medical evidence, the negative report of the ballistic expert, and the fact that key prosecution witnesses disowned their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the right of an accused to an expeditious trial, noting that the applicant had been in custody for over four years without the trial concluding. Consequently, the Court granted bail, subject to the furnishing of surety, while clarifying that these observations were tentative and should not influence the final trial outcome.
- Does a significant contradiction between ocular evidence and medical reports constitute grounds for the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted when a complainant disowns the contents of the F.I.R. during trial?
- Is prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of a trial a valid consideration for granting bail?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' BHAJANDAS TEJWANI, J.---The allegations against the present applicant in the F.I.R. Lodged on 27- 5-2005 in crime No,46 of 2005 Police Station, Sakrand are that he fired from his pistol which hit deceased Riaz Hussain on the chest, who died instantly.
2. ' The bail application is pressed on the ground that the applicant is in jail custody since more than four years and the trial has not been concluded. There is conflict between ocular and medico legal version. The report of ballistic expert with regard to the recovery of pistol is in negative and that complainant in his deposition has disowned the F.I.R. And he in clear terms said in his deposition that the deceased has sustained only on his chest, while P.W. Muhammad Illyas who is eyewitness of the incident has also deposed that deceased sustained only one injury on his chest. The P.W.
3. Muhammad Illyas disown 161, Cr.P.C. Statement recorded by the police.
4. ' The learned D.P.G. Appearing for the .State has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the name of the applicant along with specific role transpires in the F.I.R. And P.Ws have supported the case of prosecution and the recovery has been effected from the applicant and that the delay in trial as disclosed by the trial Court is on the part of the applicant.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned D.P.G. Appearing on behalf of the State.
6. This case is pending for adjudication since more than four years and the applicant is in jail custody without being adjudged. It is right of a person, involved in a criminal case to be tried expeditiously.
7. Moreover, there are material contradictions in the ocular version and medical opinion. According to the case of prosecution as alleged in the F.I.R. That the deceased sustained only one injury on his chest caused by the present applicant, while according to post mortem note, the deceased has sustained another injury on his left thigh and according to expert medical opinion, both injuries have been caused by firearm weapon. The complainant and P.Ws./eye-witnesses examined have deposed in clear term that deceased sustained only one fire arm injury on his chest and no other injury on thigh was sustained by him.
8. ' Further more, the complainant in his deposition disowned the contents of F.I.R. That the same was not read over to him by the police and so also P.W. Muhammad Illyas in his deposition in Court has said that his 161, Cr .P.C. Statement was not recorded by the police. In my humble opinion, the case has been made out for grant of concession of bail in view of the said discrepancies coupled with opinion of ballistic expert, which is in negative.
9. ' For the foregoing reasons, this bail application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail, on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs .Two hundred thousand and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
10. ' The above observations are of tentative in nature and should not influence upon the learned trial Court at the time of final disposal of the case.