KHALID vs The STATE
This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Khalid seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 155 of 2012 registered at Police Station Khanpur for offences under sections 353, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail where an exchange of fire took place between the police and the accused but no injuries were sustained by anyone, and the prosecution witnesses were exclusively police officials. The Sindh High Court held that a prima facie case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made out, noting that no injuries were sustained despite cross-firing, all prosecution witnesses were police officials, the investigation was complete with a challan submitted, and the applicant had already been granted bail in a connected case. The court laid down the principle that where the ingredients of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code require further determination at trial and no injuries result from alleged firing between police and accused, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether bail should be granted when an accused is charged under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code but no injuries are sustained during the alleged cross-firing with police?
- Does the fact that all prosecution witnesses are police officials constitute a ground for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete and the challan has already been submitted to the trial court?
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---Applicant/accused seeks bail in Crime No,155 of 2012 registered against him at Police Station Khanpur for offences punishable under sections 353, 324, 34, P.P.C.
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that on 1-9-2012, SHO Police Station Khanpur was present at Police Station. He received a telephone call from Syed Akbar Ali Shah that two persons have snatched from him cash and a mobile phone and during incident a fire hit to one culprit at the hands of another. On such information, police party proceeded to the pointed place, and saw two accused persons, one was carrying Kalashnikov and he was injured, another accused was carrying. T.T pistol. It is alleged that there was cross firing between the police and the accused persons for twenty minutes. Thereafter both the accused were caughthold. On enquiry one accused disclosed his name as Jamsher son of Laloo Dodani and another accused disclosed his name as Khalid son of Shahzado Jatoi and one K.K without permit was recovered from accused Jamsher. One T.T Pistol along with magazine containing one live bullet were recovered from possession of accused Khalid Jatoi. Mashmirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared. Accused were brought at Police Station. F.I.R. Was lodged against the accused on behalf of the State under sections 353, 324 and 34, P.P.C.
3. ' After usual investigation challan was submitted against accused under sections 353, 324 and 34, P.P.C. Bail Application was moved on behalf of applicant Khalid before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur and the same was dismissed vide order dated 5-10-2012. Thereafter applicant has approached to this Court.
4. ' Mr. Shahbaz Ali Brohi, learned Advocate for the applicant has contended that despite firing with sophisticated weapons from both the sides none has received injuries. Prosecution case is highly doubtful. All the Prosecution witnesses are police officials. There is no question of tampering with the evidence. Case has already been challaned. In the connected case bearing Crime No,154 of 2012, PS Khanpur under section 392, P.P.C., bail has been granted to the applicant/accused by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Khanpur on 31-10-2012. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the cases of Ashfaq Kareem alias Khalil-ur- Rehman v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 679 and Badal v. The State 2007 PCr.LJ 895.
5. ' Mr. Abdul Rasheed Soomro, learned State Counsel argued that name of the applicant transpired in the F.I.R. And he had fired upon the police party with intention to kill them. Unlicensed T.T pistol was recovered from his possession, Case is a fresh one. He has opposed the bail application.
6. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available.
7. In my view, prima facie, a case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out for the reason that applicant fired upon police party but nobody was injured in the firing made by both the parties.
8. Ingredients of section 324, P.P.C., are yet to be determined at trial. All the P. Ws. Are police officials.
9. There is no question of tampering with the evidence. Case has already been challaned.
10. Applicant/accused has already been grated bail in Crime No,154 of 2012 registered at P.S Khanpur under section 392, P.P.C. Apparently, case of the present applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Jamsher. In above circumstances, apparently false implication of applicant cannot be ruled out. I, therefore, hole that prima facie a case against the applicant requires further enquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, concession of bail is extended to the present applicant subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Rs, Two lacs only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
11. ' Needless to mention here that the learned trial Court shall not be influenced by observations made in this order while deciding the case of applicant as the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature.
Cited by 1 case
- GUL BAIG Versus State 2017 YLRN 327