GAJI alias DODO vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused person charged in an F.I.R. involving a group of 25 individuals accused of firing, resulting in one death and two injuries. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who had been an absconder for a significant period, was entitled to bail despite the allegations of general firing and the lack of a specific role assigned to him in the F.I.R. The Court held that while an absconder loses certain rights under substantive and procedural law, they are not absolutely disentitled to bail. The Court observed that the recovery of only seven total bullet casings (four Kalashnikov and three G-3 rifle) contradicted the allegation that 25 persons fired, and noted the F.I.R. failed to specify what weapon the applicant carried. Consequently, the Court determined the case required further inquiry and granted bail. The key principle laid down is that absconsion does not automatically disentitle an accused from the concession of bail, and discrepancies between the number of accused and the physical evidence recovered can constitute grounds for further inquiry.
- Is an absconder absolutely disentitled to the grant of bail?
- Does the failure to assign a specific role to an accused in an F.I.R. involving a large group constitute a case for further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted where there is a significant discrepancy between the number of accused persons and the physical evidence recovered?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---F.I.R No,146 of 2009 was recorded at Police Station, Kandhra, District Sukkur, on 20-10-2009 at 7-00 p.m. For an incident alleged to have taken place on the same day at 5-00 p.m. The complainant stated that he and his family members were collecting cotton in the fields when group of 25 persons including one Dodo son of Qadir Bux alias Qadoo came there.
2. Verbal hakal was given and thereafter all the 25 persons fired as a consequence of which father- in-law of the complainant expired and two persons received injuries.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant and therefore he is entitled to the concession of bail because allegations against him are of general nature.
4. ' Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General opposed the bail application. He submitted that one person has died and two persons received injuries. He further submitted that the applicant was an absconder from 2-10-2009 till 8-5-2011 when he was arrested, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
5. ' Exercising right to reply learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had no knowledge of the F.I.R. During all the intervening period.
6. ' I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also gone through the record.
7. ' As far as contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant had no knowledge of registration of the F.I.R. And therefore he is not responsible for delay in his arrest is concerned, no such statement is made in the bail application. Simply it seems highly improbable and implausible that all the family members of the applicant are accused in a crime and applicant remains in ignorance of such action by the police. However, as far as contention of learned Deputy Prosecutor-General that the accused remained an absconder and is therefore not entitled to bail is concerned, it is settled law that an absconder is not absolutely disentitled to the grant of bail as has been held by the Supreme Court in case of Sher Ali alias Shera v. State, (sic) an absconder loses some of his rights both under the substantive as well as the procedural law. However, an absconder is not absolutely denuded of all his rights.
8. ' In the present case the deceased is said to have received four injuries and each of the injured persons is said to have received one injury each. From the place of vardat four empties of Kalashnikov and three empties of G-3 rifle were recovered. Now in the F.I.R. It is stated that. 25 persons came and fired and what is recovered is four empties of Kalashnikov and three of G-3 rifle.
9. Moreover in the F.I.R. It is not stated as to what was it that the present applicant armed with. This, therefore, appears a case of further enquiry.
10. ' Consequently, this bail application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be admitted to bail upon his executing a PR bond in the sum of Rs,300,000 (three hundred thousand only) with one surety in the c like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Cited by 1 case
- WAHID BUX alias WAHIDOO vs The STATE 2020 KLR Criminal Cases 265, 2019 MLD 810