ALI MURAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Ali Murad, in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case, specifically the delayed registration of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the police conducting an investigation prior to its formal registration. The court observed that the police had inspected the crime scene, prepared recovery memos, and conducted post-mortem examinations before the F.I.R. was registered, despite the complainant's claim of being in hiding due to fear. Furthermore, the court noted inconsistencies regarding the identity of the culprits, as the complainant initially named one individual but later corrected this to implicate another, and highlighted a discrepancy between the number of injuries sustained by the deceased and the number of shots fired. Finding that the prosecution's case required further inquiry and that the circumstances warranted relief, the court granted bail to the applicant. The judgment reinforces the principle that unexplained delays in F.I.R. registration and procedural irregularities during investigation can constitute valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail.
- Does the registration of an F.I.R. after the police have already conducted an investigation into the crime scene and post-mortem constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can the unexplained delay in the registration of an F.I.R. entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
- Does a discrepancy between the number of injuries on a deceased and the number of shots fired necessitate further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SYED ZAKIR HUSSAIN, J.---It is an admitted position that the F.I.R. was not registered in the instant case on 29-8-2010, which is the date of the incident. The F.I.R. was registered on 31-8-2010, with no plausible explanation. The facts narrated in the F.I.R. in nut-shell are that the complainant and three others including deceased Liaquat Ali, and witnesses Ali Ahmed and Muhammad Khan, who had come to the bus/wagon stand near grid station gate to fetch the transport for travelling to Kandhkot, and on 29-8-2010, at 7-30 a.m. when they were attacked by the culprits namely, Ali Murad, Shahmour and Fareed, who had come over there on one motorbike with firearm weapons, which they used against the deceased Liaquat Ali in their front in furtherance of their common intention to commit his murder, as a matter of revenge of the murder of one Anwar Ali Sawand of their side allegedly caused by the complainant party as a matter of past history of such enmity.
The record shows that the police without having registered the F.I.R., carried out' the investigation, inspected the place of wardat, prepared memo of dead body of the deceased, it prepared Danishnama, it caused the dead body to be subjected to postmortem examination, it received the blood stained clothes of the deceased from the' medical officer concerned and it secured three empties of pistol from the spot at the relevant time of such inspection under their respective memorandums pertaining to the date of the incident i,e, 29-8-2010, with variation of timing. The witnesses of the . complainant namely, Muhammad Khan and Ali Ahmed have accompanied the police to testify its proceedings and papers/documents referred to above throughout, without disclosure of the facts of the incident and the name of the culprits for the reasons well-known to them;' when almost entire investigation, which is required to be carried out after registration of the F.I.R. of a crime, the police recorded the F.I.R. by having examined the complainant under section 154, Cr.P.C, who had remained absent before his such examination and the reason which lie has given for such absence, is that he went underground due to fear of the culprits. This can hardly be termed to be plausible, or a reasonable excuse particularly when his close relations who were witnesses of the case remained active and participated in the proceedings referred to above instead of having accompanied the complainant to be so underground. This fact however, as per the learned counsel makes the fairness of the complainant cloudy. Besides, as pinpointed, he nominated three persons and his witnesses supported him except for one of the nominated persons namely Fareed, who according to them was not from amongst the culprits but one Sabir was named by them in his place as, one of the said three culprits. On 1-9-2010, the complainant made further statement and corrected his error by having stated in corroboration of the statements of his witnesses to the effect that it was Sabir and not Fareed, who according to him, was wrongly mentioned, and being innocent was open to be set at liberty. The learned counsel further states that the medical evidence shows that the deceased sustained seven injuries. The culprits are three in number, and similarly, the empties are three in number. The question as to why seven injuries, have appeared on the person of the deceased by three tire shots, needs further enquiry. The learned counsel in support of his contentions, relied upon case of Allandino alias Dino alia Khanu v. The State (2001 YLR 3143), Nooruddin and another v. The State (2005 M LD 1267), Waris and 2 others v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 642), Muhammad Shafique alias, Chhara v. The State (2007 M LD 736) and Parial v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 1212).
2. The learned State counsel though does not concede, but has been unable to make out a case of refusal of grant of bail as requested for, in the circumstances. Keeping in view what has been discussed above with reference to the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, I do hereby grant bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs,100,000 (One hundred thousands), with P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.