Ahmed vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an accused charged with qatl-i-amd (intentional murder) and causing injuries to a prosecution witness. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry, given allegations of false implication, delayed FIR, and the relationship between prosecution witnesses. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, finding reasonable grounds to believe he was guilty of the charged offense. The court specifically noted that the FIR contained a specific allegation of the applicant causing a head injury to the deceased with a weapon, which contradicted the defense's claim that no specific injury was attributed. The court further held that the delay in lodging the FIR was plausibly explained and that the relationship between prosecution witnesses did not warrant disbelieving them at the bail stage. The court emphasized that observations made during bail proceedings are tentative and should not prejudice the trial.
- Does the relationship between prosecution witnesses automatically render their testimony unreliable at the bail stage?
- Can a delay in lodging an FIR be considered a sufficient ground for the grant of bail when the delay is explained within the FIR?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when there is a specific allegation of causing a fatal injury, despite claims of false implication?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J. It is alleged that applicant with rest of the culprit in prosecution of their common intention not only committed qatl-i-amd of Ibrahim by causing him "Khaheero" injuries but caused "Khaheero" injuries to PW Mst.
Ameena with intention to commit her murder , for that present case was registered.
2. The applicant on having been refused post arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV , Dadu have sought for the same from this court by way of making instant application under section 497 Cr .P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its dispute with him over harvestation of crop; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about six days; no specific injury to the deceased is attributed to the applicant and complainant and PWs are related interse, therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of bail on point of further enquiry . In support of his contention he relied upon case Liaqat Ali vs the State ( 2011 SCMR 910 ).
4. Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of incident by causing "Khaheero" injuries to the deceased on his head.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR with specific allegation that he caused injury to the deceased on his with "Khaheero", in order to satisfy his grudge with him over harvestation of crop. In that situation, it would be wrong to say that no specific injury to the deceased is attributed to the applicant. No doubt the FIR is lodged with delay of about six days, but it is explained in FIR itself plausibly; such delay even otherwise, could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. The complainant and PWs may be related interse, but their relationship is not enough to disbelieve them at this stage. It would be premature to make a conc lusion that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party . There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the of fence with which he is charged.
7. The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case the accused was acquitted by Hon'ble apex Court while hearing an appeal. In the instant case, no acquittal is before the Court.
8. In view of the facts and reason discussed above, it could be concluded safely that the applicant is not found entitled to be released on bail. Consequently , his bail application is dismissed with direction to learned trial Court to expedite disposal of the case preferably within three months after receipt of copy of this order .
9. Needless to state, that the observation recorded above is tentative in nature; same may not affect the case of either of the party at trial.