IZHAR and another vs THE STATE
This matter arose out of a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, who were nominated along with a co-accused in an FIR for allegedly robbing the complainant party at gunpoint and causing a firearm injury to the complainant's son. The core legal questions before the High Court of Sindh were whether an unexplained delay of 27 days in lodging the FIR despite an immediate visit to the police station for a medical letter raised a presumption of non-identification, and whether the absence of recoveries rendered the case one of further inquiry. The High Court held that the complainant's failure to lodge the FIR immediately upon visiting the police station, coupled with the fact that neither the robbed articles nor any crime weapons were recovered from the applicants during the investigation, created substantial doubt in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court held that the matter fell within the purview of further inquiry and granted bail to the applicants subject to solvent surety.
- Whether an unexplained delay of 27 days in lodging an FIR creates doubt regarding the identification of the accused when the complainant visited the police station on the day of the incident?
- Whether the non-recovery of robbed property and crime weapons makes the case of an accused one of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Does visiting a police station merely to obtain a medical treatment letter without reporting the names of alleged known attackers raise a presumption of non-identification?
ORDER
1. ' IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---The case of the prosecution is that, on 3-12-2011, complainant along with his son Hakim Ali and nephew Rajib Ali proceeded on motorcycle for Mehar Town. The motorcycle was being driven by his son. When at about 0830 hours they reached near Jatoi Laaro on Indus Highway, from their opposite side one motorcycle came and three persons having weapons aimed weapons towards them and signalled them to stop. The complainant identified them as Paryal Chandio, Gulab Panhwar and Izhar .Chandio; that robbed complainant party of their motorcycle and a mobile phone set, however on resistance offered by Hakim Ali, the accused Paryal fired from his pistol which hit Hakim Ali at right eye side. After that the culprits fled away from the scene of offence. The complainant further stated that he went to Police Station Mehar on the same day, obtained letter for treatment of his injured son and after obtaining final medical certificate he again went to police station and lodged F.I.R. As stated above.
2. ' Heard learned counsel for the applicant, as well as learned State Counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that F.I.R. Is delayed by 27 days and no plausible explanation has been offered for such inordinate delay, though the complainant on the very same day went to police station and only obtained letter for medical treatment of his son. He further contended that nothing incriminating has been recovered from applicants. Learned counsel lastly submits that the case of applicants falls under the purview of further enquiry.
3. ' Learned State Counsel opposed grant of bail, and contended that names of the applicants do appear in the F.I.R. With regard to delay in lodging the F.I.R., he submits that the complainant was busy in treatment of his injured son in hospital and as soon as final medical certificate was issued, he went to police station and lodged F.I.R. As regards non-recovery of crime weapons or robbed articles learned State counsel concedes that nothing was recovered from the applicants during investigation.
4. I have considered submissions advanced at the bar and perused, the material available on record including police papers. Admittedly, the complainant approached Police Station Mehar on very same day of the incident, but he did not lodge F.I.R., but only obtained letter for medical treatment, which creates doubt in the prosecution case and presumption would be that complainant had not identified the culprits at the time of alleged incident. It is also an admitted fact that during course of investigation the police had. Not recovered the robbed motorcycle etc. Or crime weapons carried by the culprits during commission of offence. In view of the above circumstances, the case of the applicants appears to be of further enquiry. A Consequently, this bail application is allowed.
5. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Fifty thousands) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- HASSAN ALI and anothers vs THE STATE 2013 YLR 1322