GHULAM YASEEN vs The STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, charged with offenses under Sections 324 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged armed encounter with police. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail despite the recovery of an unlicensed weapon, given the defense's contention of false implication due to prior enmity and the absence of any injuries or property damage despite a prolonged exchange of fire. The Sindh High Court held that the accused was entitled to bail. The court reasoned that since no injuries were sustained by either party and no damage was caused to the police vehicle during the alleged five-minute shootout, the prosecution's case required further inquiry. Furthermore, as the investigation was complete and the challan submitted, there was no risk of tampering with evidence. The court emphasized that at the bail stage, only a tentative view is taken, and the application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 remained a matter for trial determination.
- Does an alleged police encounter involving sophisticated weapons where no injuries or property damage occurred constitute a case requiring further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted to the court?
- To what extent can a court evaluate the merits of a case at the bail stage?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13-(d), Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---Applicant/accused seeks bail in Crime No,74 of 2012 registered against the accused at Police Station Radhan Station for offences punishable under sections 324 and 353, P.P.C.
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that on 1-10-2012 A.S.-I. Muhammad Afzal Solangi, Incharge of P.P. Sindhi Butra of Police Station Radhan Station left police post along with his subordinate staff vide roznamcha entry No,7 at 6-00 p.m. In government vehicle No,SP-7318 far patrol duty. While patrolling at various places, they stopped at Saleh Jatoi Bridge on Mehar-Nau Goth link road and started checking of vehicles. At about 2230 hours a car appeared from Mehar side which was signalled to stop. The driver of the car, seeing the police party stopped the car from which four accused armed with rifles got down and while challenging the police party started firing at them with intention to kill. Police also fired in defence. The accused left the car on the road and started running to southern side. Ultimately one accused armed with K.K. Type rifle was apprehended by police while rest of three accused made their escape good. One K.K. Type of rifle was secured from the apprehended accused. On inquiry, accused disclosed his name as Ghulam Yaseen Soomro and also disclosed names of other escaped accused as Hussain alias Pathan, 2.
3. Abdul Majeed Soho and Qurban Brohi and stated that his rite is unlicensed. From his personal search nothing incriminating material was recovered from his possession. The car left by the accused on road was also secured and for its papers accused Ghulam Yaseen failed to produce the same. Thereafter mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared in presence of mashirs namely P.Cs. Muhammad Hassan and Muhammad Ali. Accused Ghulam Yaseen along with rifle as well as car were brought at Police Station where the F.I.R. Was lodged. A separate F.I.R. Under section 13-(d) A.0 was also registered against the said accused.
4. ' After completion of usual investigation, challan was submitted against accused. Bail application on behalf of the applicant/accused Ghulam Yaseen was moved before learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, same was rejected by his order dated 18-10-2012 thereafter applicant/accused approached to this Court for similar relief through the instant bail application.
5. ' Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, learned advocate for the applicant/accused contended that despite encounter with the sophisticated weapons which lasted for five minutes, no one received injury from either side neither vehicle parked at the wardhat was damaged. All the P. Ws. Are police officials and deeply interested. He further submits that prior to the instant case, the father of applicant namely Mohammad Hashim Soomro filed constitutional petitions bearing Nos.2034 of 2010 and 733 of 2006 against the police officials. It is contended that accused have been falsely implicated in this case only to take revenge.
6. ' Learned State counsel concedes to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and recorded no objection to the grant of bail to applicant/accused.
7. I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused for the reasons that there was cross-firing with the sophisticated weapons but no one received injury/scratch from both sides. Even no damage was caused to the police mobile. Case has been challaned therefore, there is no question of tampering with prosecution evidence. Apparently, in the circumstances of the case application of section 324, P.P.C. Is yet to be determined at the trial. It may be mentioned here that evidence at bail stage cannot be appreciated deeply and only tentative view is to be taken to find out as to whether accused is connected with the commission of alleged offence or not. On the basis of mere allegation without sufficient material, concession of bail cannot be refused to the applicant/accused as punishment.
8. Prima facie a case against the applicant/accused Ghulam Yaseen requires further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, concession of bail is extended to applicant subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. These are the reasons for my short order.
9. ' Needless to mention here that the above observations are tentative in nature and trial Court shall not be influenced by the same at the trial.
Cited by 1 case
- SAJID alias SAJJAN Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 203