NABEEL AHMED vs STATE
This criminal bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 320 of 2014 registered under Section 23-1(A) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 at Police Station Sir Syed Karachi, following the dismissal of his earlier bail plea by the trial court. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail in light of alleged procedural defects in the recovery and the principle of consistency. The Sindh High Court held that the failure of the police to associate independent local witnesses as mushirs for the arrest and recovery created reasonable doubt regarding the recovery proceedings, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry. The Court further noted that a co-accused had already been granted bail, making the rule of consistency applicable, and that the applicant had been detained without the need for further investigation. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, establishing that lack of independent verification in recovery proceedings and the rule of consistency constitute valid grounds for granting bail.
- Whether failure to associate independent local witnesses as mushirs for an arrest and recovery creates reasonable doubt warranting post-arrest bail?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused has already been granted bail in the same case?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the case falls within the purview of further inquiry based on tentative assessment?
- Section 23-1(A) Sindh Arms Act, 2013
' Through this bail application, applicant seeks post arrest bail in Crime No, 320 of 2014, registered under Section 23-1(A) Sindh Arms Act, 2013, Police Station Sir Syed Karachi. Prior to this, applicant moved post arrest bail before the Court of learned VthAdditional Session Judge, Karachi-Central, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 27-11-2014, impugned hereinabove.
2. Precisely prosecution story as is incorporated in the FIR are that on the eventful day applicant/accused was found in possession of one unlicensed Pistol .30 bore without number together with six live rounds, and from his pent Mobile Phone 1, Nokia Model 110,
2. Black Colour Mobile LVTL Model China,
3. "T" Mobile Black Colour were recovered and from the pocket of his shirt Rs,760 were also recovered, therefore, applicant / accused was booked by the police in the present case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during patrolling applicant/accused was caught hold adjacent Younus Masjid, Sector 7-B, Karachi, but complainant failed to associate any person from the locality to act as mushir of arrest and the alleged recovery; it has been further submitted that name of the mushirs does not find place in the FIR; hence lastly learned counsel prayed that the applicant/accused may be enlarged on post arrest bail.
4. Learned APG oppose the grant of bail but did not controvert the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
5. It is an admitted position that complainant arrested applicant/accused adjacent Younus Masjid, Sector 7-B, Karachi, but complainant failed to associate any independent person from the locality.
It is also an admitted position that names of the witnesses are not mentioned in the FIR to show that the recovery was affected from possession of applicant/accused which creates reasonable doubt in the recovery proceedings. The basic concept of bail is that no innocents liberty is to be curtailed until and unless proved otherwise, the proposition of law is that every accused is innocent until his guilt proved, if the Court forms an opinion on the basis of tentative assessment of the evidence that reasonable grounds are available to believe that accused has committed offence with which he has been charged he would be allowed bail. Even in the case falling within prohibitory clause, an accused is entitled to concession of bail if his case comes within purview of further inquiry. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I have reached to a conclusion that the case of present applicant requires further probe. Apart from above, co- accused Muhammad Kamran has earlier been granted post arrest bail by the trial Court vide order dated 27-07-2014 in a main case hence principle of rule of consistency is also applicable into the present case. Moreso, the applicant has remained in jail since 22-09-2014; case has already been challaned and applicant is no more required for further investigation purposes.
6. As discussed supra, applicant/accused Nabeel Ahmed son of Anis Ahmed is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousand Only) and P.R.Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Note: The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice case of either party on merits.
' The criminal bail application is disposed of.