MUNAWAR KHAN vs The STATE
This bail petition arises from a criminal case registered against the petitioner under sections 324 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 and section 15 of the Arms Act 1965. The petitioner sought post-arrest bail, contending that there was no evidence connecting him to the alleged offence and that his case warranted further inquiry. The State opposed the application, arguing that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause. Upon review, the Court noted significant discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, specifically the absence of injuries or physical evidence of gunfire despite a reported seven-minute exchange, and the suspicious timing of the FIR relative to a prior writ petition filed by the petitioner's brother alleging police misconduct. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide a plausible explanation for these inconsistencies, rendering the petitioner's involvement a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing that where the prosecution's case lacks prima facie evidentiary support and raises serious doubts, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Does the absence of physical evidence or injuries in a reported shootout justify a finding of 'further inquiry' for the purpose of bail?
- Can a significant time gap between an alleged incident and the filing of an FIR, coupled with prior allegations of police misconduct, cast doubt on the prosecution's case for bail purposes?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to provide a plausible explanation for material inconsistencies in the FIR?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Explosive Substances Act 1908
- Section 15, Arms Act 1965
' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.--- Petitioner who is charged in a case registered against him under sections 324/ 353, P.P.C. Read with section 5 Explosive Substances Act/15AA Arms Act, vide FIR No,10 dated 15-1-2015 in Police Station CTD, Peshawar, sought his release on bail mainly on the" Mounds that he has no nexus with the offence and that there is no ocular or circumstantial evidence which could connect him with the commission of the crime and his Oise is one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail.
2. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that according to the data available on the record, the petitioner being linked with the commission of a crime attracting prohibitory clause, does not deserve the concession of bail.
3. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Though according to the FIR, the firing between the Police party and the persons sought to be detained remained started for seven minutes but the learned State counsel when asked, what would be the transparency of the controversy narrated in the FIR, when neither anybody has been shown injured, in the cross-firing, nor any bullet scratch has been noticed on the wall of the Hujra, he could not give any satisfactory explanation which could be termed plausible. It is strange that the persons sought to be apprehended made their escape good and instead one of the inmates of the Hujra, petitioner herein, was arrested from the house. How all this happened and how the petitioner can be linked with the crime, he is charged with, is yet to be determined at the trial. It is also evident from the record that Bahar Gul, the brother of the petitioner, filed a writ petition against respondents Nos.3 to 7 alleging therein that on 11-1-2015 at about 02.00 p.m., the aforementioned respondents accompanied with other Police . Officials, raided the house of the petitioner taking forcibly Rs,25,00,000 therefrom, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 15-1-2015. The difference between the date "regarding the raid asserted in the writ petition and the date on which the FIR was lodged, if seen in the surrounding circumstances, are the questions which find no plausible answer from the record. When this being the position, I do not think that the petitioner can be linked with a crime attracting prohibitory clause. The case of the petitioner being arguable for the purpose of bail calls for further inquiry.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition for bail is allowed and direct the release of the petitioner, provided, he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who is to ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
Cited by 1 case
- Shah Nawaz vs The State, etc. 2015 LHC 6646