Muhammad Shah Rukh vs NOT
This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant Muhammad Shah Rukh, seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 85/2014 registered at Police Station Landhi, Karachi East, under sections 147, 148, 149, 435, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail where his name was not mentioned in the FIR, surfaced only through spy information, and where identification was made by the police officer rather than an independent witness, leaving his actual involvement subject to further inquiry. The Court held that the case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as no specific overt act or use of explosive substances was attributed to the applicant and general allegations were made. The key principle laid down is that where the identity of an accused is based on spy information and police identification without corroborative independent evidence linking him to the specific crime, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused, and bail granted accordingly.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused's name is not mentioned in the FIR and surfaces only through spy information?
- Can identification by a police officer in an identification parade serve as sole basis to deny bail in the absence of independent corroboration?
- Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when general and collective allegations are attributed to the accused?
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 435, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- This is an application for bail moved on behalf of applicant/accused Muhammad Shah Rukh, who is detained in Crime No.85/2014 dated 01.05.2014, registered at police station Landhi, Karachi East, under sections 147/148/149/435/427 read with section 7 of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in FIR are that on 01.05.2014, S.H.O. Waseem Ahmad Qureshi of P.S. Landhi Karachi, left police station along with his subordinate staff for patrolling as the situation was tense on account of strike call of a political party. The police party reached at main road near Bismillah Masjid, where it is alleged that 30-35 persons had blocked the road by creating terror in the vicinity. It is further alleged that a mob had set on fire a vehicle bearing No.JB- 0303. Assailants while seeing the police made their escape good in the streets. S.H.O. received spy information that applicant/accused Shah Rukh, Faheem alias Mota and others, belonging to Motaheda Quomi Movement, were involved in the alleged incident. F.I.R. was lodged on behalf of the State under the above referred sections.
3. Applicant/accused was arrested in another case and he was put to the identification parade through S.H.O. Waseem Ahmed Qureshi in this case, who identified him that accused Muhammad Shah Rukh was carrying stick(danda) at the time of incident. On conclusion of investigation, challan was submitted against present accused and others for offences under sections 147/148/149/435 /427 read with section 7(H) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
4. Bail application was moved on behalf of applicant/accused before the learned Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court-I, Karachi, but the same was rejected vide order dated 22.08.2014. Thereafter, the applicant/accused has approached this Court.
5. Mr. Muhammad Imran Meo, learned advocate for the applicant/accused, contended that name of the applicant/accused was introduced by S.H.O. in the F.I.R. on spy information. No explosive substance or Lathi was recovered from the accused. It is also argued that accused was in the custody of Law Enforcing Agencies before the alleged incident. Lastly, he argued that applicant/accused has not been nominated by the driver of the bus in his statement recoded during investigation.
6. Mr. Khadim Hussain, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh, has opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant/accused was identified in the identification parade by the S.H.O. I.O. had collected sufficient material against the applicant/accused to connect him in this case. It is also argued that alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it has been noticed that the applicant/accused has not been nominated in the F.I.R. as one of the culprits of the alleged incident and the name of the applicant/accused had surfaced in this case on spy information received by the complainant/S.H.O. In the identification parade, applicant/accused has been identified by the S.H.O. and part has been assigned to him that as he was carrying Lathi at that time. Apparently, no evidence was collected against applicant/accused for committing mischief by fire or any explosive substance for setting on fire the bus or caused damage to any property. The allegations leveled against the applicant/accused in the F.I.R. are couched in generalized and collective terms, no specific part has been attributed to the applicant/accused therein. Driver of the bus, namely, Syed Mazhar Ali, has also not named the accused in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.PC. Since in this case, identity of the assailants, who caused mischief by explosive substance, is yet to be established and it was doubtful as to who, among accused persons, caused the alleged offence. Benefit of doubt even for limited purpose of bail is to be extended to the applicant/accused in the circumstances of case. Applicant/accused is no more required for investigation, case has already been challaned. Applicant/accused is in jail since 5 months, yet charge has not been framed.
8. For the above stated reasons, prima facie, there are no reasonable ground for believing that the applicant/accused has committed the alleged offence but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt as contemplated under subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Concession of bail is extended to the applicant/accused Muhammad Shah Rukh subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
9. Needless, to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant/accused on merits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.