DHANI BUX alias DINO vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal case where the applicant, Dhani Bux alias Dino, sought bail after arrest following the dismissal of his pre-arrest bail application by the Sessions Court. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the fourteen-day delay in lodging the FIR, the attribution of a non-fatal firearm injury on a non-vital part of the body, and the fact that co-accused had already been granted relief. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay in FIR registration cast doubt on the prosecution's case, and sending the applicant to jail would serve no useful purpose as his case fell outside the prohibitory clause of the relevant procedural law. The court laid down the principle that delayed FIR registration coupled with injuries on non-vital parts and lack of apprehension of evidence tampering warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does an unexplained delay of fourteen days in lodging the F.I.R. create sufficient doubt to justify the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when a firearm injury is attributed to a non-vital part of the body?
- Whether sending an accused to jail serves any useful purpose when the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, J.--- On 27-6-2009 complainant lodged F.I.R. By stating that on 13-6-2010 he along with his brother Allah Jurrio, his maternal nephew Nizamuddin and Azam went to meet with his daughter at village Saleh Panar in the house of Ghulam Mustafa. Complainant saw Ghulam Qadir alias Momin, Dhani Bux, and Gahi Khan armed with guns, Manzoor armed with pistol, Roshan armed with country made pistol, Nawaz armed with pistol, came there. Meanwhile they were instigated by accused Ghulam Qadir therefore, applicant Dhani Bux allegedly fired from his gun at Nizamuddin which hit him on his left arm, who raised cries and fell down. Then complainant party was maltreated by all accused and thereafter all accused made their escape by abusing complainant party and making aerial firing. Complainant further alleged that he was deprived of Rs.5000.
2. ' After registration of the F.I.R. Applicant and others filed their pre-arrest bail application in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dadu on 2-7-2010. Firstly the interim bail was granted to the co- accused on 6-7-2010 but bail application of the applicant was dismissed therefore, the applicant approached this Court through the present bail application on 15-7-2010 and on 15-7-2010 interim bail was granted to him and the matter was adjourned for confirmation or otherwise for 12-8-2010 and again for 30-8-2010.
3. ' Heard Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Musab Baleegh Dhamrah, learned State counsel.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the F.I.R. Is registered with the delay of about 14 days and injured allegedly received injury on his arm which is not vital part of the body. He further contended that in all six persons were implicated by the complainant and all were allegedly armed with guns and pistols but nothing was done by the co-accused except by the present applicant who allegedly fired one shot from gun which hit Nizamuddin on his arm therefore these allegations do not fulfil the definition of section 324, P.P.C. While punishment of the remaining sections does not come within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, he prayed for bail.
5. ' Admittedly the F. I. R was registered with the delay of about 14 days, the applicant was allegedly armed with gun and he fired one shot which allegedly hit to Nizamuddin on his arm though other accused were armed with guns and pistols but nothing was done by them except aerial firing.
6. There may be dispute between the parties but late registration of the F.I.R. Create doubt in the case of prosecution. Co-accused have been granted pre-arrest bail though case of the applicant is not identical to the case of co-accused but atleast his case is fit for grant of bail after arrest and if he is remanded to jail then no purpose will be served for the prosecution and again he is to be released on bail after arrest. The witnesses are relative of the complainant therefore there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence by the applicant. After grant of interim pre-arrest bail on 15-7-2010 therefore complaint that he is non-co-operative with the investigation. Keeping position, this bail on 30-8-2010 and my short order in view the above application was allowed these are the reasons of.
Cited by 1 case
- MALIKUDDIN Versus State 2017 YLRN 363