AKBAR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Akbar in a criminal case involving charges under sections 17(3) and 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, along with allegations of dacoity and murder during the commission of the offense. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given that specific fatal firearm injuries were attributed to co-accused persons, no recovery of looted property was effected from the applicant, and questions arose regarding the precise number of culprits and applicability of statutory provisions for tentative assessment. The Sindh High Court held that the case against the applicant called for further inquiry within the meaning of criminal jurisprudence, particularly regarding his specific role and accountability, and consequently granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing security. The key principle laid down is that where fatal imputations are specifically assigned to other co-accused and no incriminating recovery is made from the petitioner, the case may fall within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when specific fatal firearm injuries are attributed to other co-accused persons?
- Does the absence of any recovery of crime property from the possession of the accused make out a case for further inquiry?
- Whether an accused can be granted bail when the case against him rests solely on ocular testimony yet to be tested at trial?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 17(4), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
SYED ZAKIR HUSSAIN, J.---The case pertains to an incident covered by sections .17(3), and 17(4) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, reportedly, caused by four persons and one unknown person in furtherance of their common intention jointly, on the given date, place and time and during the course, they have succeeded to have taken away on gunpoint the three motorbikes belonging to the complainant party consisting of four persons including the complainant, two witnesses and one deceased namely, Ghulam Raza, who reportedly died on the spot during the commission of such crime owing to the firearm injuries caused by two fire shots fired respectively from rifle and .gun by accused Sono and Manzoor as reported against. The culprits managed to escape. The matter was reported to the police and the instant F.I.R. was registered and thereafter as the matter of proceedings of investigation there against, the applicant was arrested and after completion of the said proceedings, the charge sheet was submitted in the Court of law without arresting the other culprits and without affecting any recovery of the looted motorbikes.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record. The bail application preferred in the learned trial Court has been rejected on merits. Prior to this application, an application for such. purpose was preferred before this Court but the same stood withdrawn and could not be decided on merits, and hence this is the second bail application.
3. The learned counsel states that the allegations of causing firearm injuries and thereby causing death of the deceased Ghulam Raza are against the nominated 'persons, namely, Sono and Manzoor and for the purpose of the bail, the case of the present applicant to such allegation will require further enquiry. He further contended that the remaining portion of the allegations constituting a case of dacoity in terms of section 395, P.P.,C. appears to have been there, but since one culprit is unknown, for the purpose of tentative assessment, the number of the culprits will be construed to be four, not five, unless the unknown person has stood traced out or proved positively, the benefit of such situation, too, will go to the applicant for the purpose of concession of grant of bail: The case therefore, according to the learned counsel is open to be considered for the present purpose, to have fallen within the purview of. section 392, P.P.C. in point of criminal accountability of the applicant, which carries punishment up to ten years, yet the learned counsel states in that behalf, that since there is no recovery of any crime property front the possession of the applicant; the case does depend only on the ocular testimony, yet to come on record, and hence, for the intervening period, the case to such effect, too, appears to be one of further enquiry, and the applicant is entitled to grant of bail in the circumstances. The learned State counsel opposed the request.
4. Keeping in view the above, I do hereby grant bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs,100,000 (One hundred thousands), with bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ASIF BAIG Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 16