SIKANDAR vs The STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant seeking release in Crime No. 214 of 2012 registered at Police Station Azizabad for offences under sections 324, 353, 186, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the recovery of a weapon from his possession and his alleged involvement in firing at a police party resulting in injury to a police constable. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant failed to make out a case for bail, considering the spot arrest, the recovery of a .30 bore TT pistol with live bullets, positive ballistic reports, and the injury sustained by the police constable. The court established the key principles that police witnesses are as credible as independent witnesses when independent persons avoid testifying in such incidents, and that an accused whose role involves active firing is not entitled to parity of treatment with a co-accused who was merely driving a vehicle.
- Whether an accused apprehended on the spot with a firearm used in an attack on police is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Are police witnesses considered as good as independent witnesses when independent witnesses are unavailable or avoid testifying?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when the role of the bail-seeking accused is distinguishable from a co-accused already granted bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this bail application applicant seeks post arrest bail in Crime No,214 of 2012 for offences under sections 324 353, 186 and 34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Azizabad.
2. ' The allegation against applicant as per F.I.R are that he along with co-accused Farooque, Kaimil and Aamir were going in Rikshaw, Rickshaw belongs to accused Aamir, when police party tried to stop them, to which they did not stop and started firing upon their respective pistols upon police party with an intention to commit their Qatl-e-amd, except co-accused Aamir, who was driving.
3. Tiring made injured the Police Constable Zaffar Siddiqui which hit at his right chest. He was arrested on the spot with co-accused and one .30 bore TT pistol loaded with two live bullets was recovered from his possession and recovery was also effected from co-accused.
4. ' Counsel for applicant states that applicant is innocent who has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecution and recovery is foisted upon him. He submits that no specific role is assigned to present applicant. He submits that co-accused Aamir has been admitted on bail, therefore, he is also entitled for the concession of. Bail. No private witnesses are associated which is clear violation of section 103 Cr.P.C. He relied upon case-law report in 1998 SCMR 314, 2005 YLR 112 and 2005 M LD 164. He prayed for Bail.
5. ' Learned A.P.G opposed the grant of bail. He submits that recovery of .30 bore TT pistol loaded with two live bullets is recovered from the possession of applicant/accused is sufficient to connect him with the commission of offence. He submits that report of ballistic experts in respect of bullets is in positive. He submits that injured is still in hospital.
6. I have heard. The learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
7. Applicant/accused was arrested on, the spot by police party and from his exclusive possession a TT pistol loaded with two live bullets, is effected. No enmity is shown by the applicant/accused that prosecution has falsely implicated him in this case and managed pistol with two live bullets against the applicant/accused. The firing made from the Rickshaw has injured Police Constable Zaffar Siddiqui, is still in hospital. Independent witnesses are avoiding in such type of cases to witness the incident, therefore, police witnesses are as good witnesses as independent witnesses.
8. Moreover the role of co-accused Amir, who is admitted on bail is different to that of present applicant/accused, allegation against that accused is that he was only driving the Rickshaw. The offence falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The facts and circumstances of the case- laws referred above are distinguishable to that of instant case, therefore the same are not applicable.
9. ' The result of above discussion is that counsel for applicant/ accused has not been able to make out a case for bail, therefore, this bail application is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to examine at least two witnesses i,e, complainant and witness within three months.