SOOMAR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant, Soomar, who was booked in a criminal case along with other accused under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for offences including murder and attempted murder. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the circumstances and the FIR's narration. The Sindh High Court held that the detailed narration in the FIR—where the complainant recalled the names, parentage, ages, and specific weapons of thirteen out of twenty-three accused persons during a nighttime incident—created reasonable doubt regarding the identification of the applicant and the attribution of the specific injury, thus bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court enlarged the applicant on bail, establishing the principle that where the specific identification and role attributed in a heavily populated nighttime crime narration appear inherently doubtful upon tentative assessment, the matter warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.
- Whether the unusual detailed description of numerous accused in a nighttime FIR warrants further inquiry for the purpose of post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be granted post-arrest bail when the attribution of a specific firearm injury becomes doubtful upon tentative assessment of the FIR?
- Does the rule against deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage preclude tentative review of improbable details in an FIR?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 141, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Soomar, son of Allah Warayo, (applicant) is booked along with 13 other accused in F.I.R. No,169 of 2011 of Police Station Khuda Abad, District Dadu for offence punishable under sections 302, 324, 365, 458, 141, 148, 149, 504 Pakistan Penal Code.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the case requires further inquiry and also stated that it is not clear from the contents of the F.I.R. That whether actually the injury had been caused to Sain Dad by the applicant; that on the date and time of incident there was hue and cry but still it is strange that the complainant remembered the detailed particulars of the persons barged into his house which particulars include their name, age, parentage and the weapon each one of them was carrying.
3. ' On the other hand learned A.P.-G. Appearing for the State vehemently opposed the application and stated that specific role has been assigned to the applicant and that because of above firing, as mentioned in the F.I.R., two fatalities of Sawan and Ashraf Khan occurred and also three injuries had been sustained by Mumtaz, Sain Dad and Rasheed, one of which is associated with the applicant. It was also mentioned that on 10-4-2011 such persons also abducted one Farzana from the complainant's house for whose recovery Constitutional Petition is pending before this court.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel for either side and have perused the material available on record. The only allegation against the applicant in the F.I.R. Is that he fired from Kalashnikov straight upon one Sain Dad, father-in-law of Ghulam Mustafa Panhwar, the complainant. The narration of the F.I.R. Would show that on 10-4-2011 Sirka 1850 hours some 23 persons, 13 of whom identified in the F.I.R. And rest remained unidentified, barged into the house of the complainant when they were duly armed; made fire shots with the result two fatalities occurred on the complainant side together with three injuries one of which is associated with the present applicant.
5. The narration of the F.I.R. By itself shows that for some strange reasons the complainant could, out of 23 persons who allegedly barged into his house, remembered the names of 13 persons their ages and also their parentage despite the fact that it was a night time. The complainant could also remember the kind of weapons each one of them was carrying. This description of the persons with their arms in itself shows that it is not clear as to how the complainant could remember the names of 13 persons with other particulars and requires further inquiry. It also, under these circumstances, create doubt as to whether and indeed the fire shot, by which Sain Dad received injury, had been caused from the weapon of the applicant and/or that indeed he was carrying such weapon and fired from it which account requires further inquiry. Though it may be true that at bail stage deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible, yet at the same time it may also be observed that in the manner the narration of the events disclosed in the F.I.R. Require further probe. Looking at the facts and circumstances, as mentioned in F.I.R., the applicant is enlarged on bail subject to his providing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,00 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.