Jalal @ Babu vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Jalal alias Babu, who was charged under Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, following an alleged recovery of an unlicensed weapon during his arrest in a separate criminal case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that the investigation was complete, he was no longer required for further interrogation, and he had already been granted bail in the primary case from which the current charge originated. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, observing that the liberty of an individual should not be curtailed without sufficient legal justification, particularly when the investigation is finalized and there is no risk of evidence tampering. The Court emphasized that in bail proceedings, the focus should not be on the maximum statutory sentence, but rather on the sentence likely to be imposed based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to the applicant furnishing solvent surety.
- Should a court consider the maximum statutory sentence or the likely sentence when deciding a bail application?
- Is an accused entitled to bail in an offshoot case when they have already been granted bail in the main case?
- Does the completion of an investigation and the lack of necessity for further interrogation constitute valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 25, Sindh Arms Act 2013
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
RASHIDA ASAD, J. By means of this application, applicant/accused Jalal alias Babu s/o Ghulam Rasool, seeks his admission on post-arrest bail in Crime No.39/2020 for offence under section 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, registered at P.S, Moya, District Tando Muhammad Khan, after rejection of his bail plea by the learned Sessions Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan vide order dated 17.07.2020.
2. Precisely , prosecution case is that on 05.07.2020 complainant ASI Ghulam Rasool Hajano apprehended the applicant/accused in Crime No. 36/2020 under sections 324, 114, 147,148, 149, 337-H(ii), 504, PPC and during interrogation, he secured a Repeater with five live cartridges alongwith magazine without number and license in working condition. The complainant prepared such mashirnama of his arrest and recovery and lodged such FIR.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the police due to political rivalry; that case property has been foisted upon the applicant with ulterior motives and malafide; that challan has already been submitted before the competent court of law and he is no more required for further investig ation; that applicant/accused is in custody since his arrest and there is no progress in the trial. He has submitted that applicant has been granted bail in the main case by learned Sessions Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan vide order dated 17.07.2020. Lastly , he argued that maximum punishment provided in the Statute for the alleged offence may not be awarded to the applicant in the circumstances of the case. In support of his contentions, he relied on the case of HABIB alias GHAFF AR ABBA v. THE STATE (2016 P.Cr.L.J. 683) and YAKOOB alias LALA v. THE ST ATE (2016 P .Cr.L.J. 1658).
4. Conversely , learned Addl. P .G opposed the grant of bail to the applicant.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through material placed on record.
6. Admittedly , the applicant was arrested in the main case and during interrogation alleged recovery was made from him. The applicant has been granted bail in main case by the learned trial court and this is an offshoot case; investigation is complete; accused is no more required for further investigation and there is no question of tampering with the evidence; applicant is in custody since his arrest without any progress. Liberty of a person cannot be curtailed without legal justification. No other case of like nature is pending against applicant. Needless to mention that the court while hearing bail is not to keep in view the maximum sentence provided by the Statute but the one which is likely to be entailed in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this respect, reliance is placed on the case of JAMALUDDIN v. STATE (2012 SCMR 573), therefore, the case of present applicant requires further inquiry .
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly , instant bail application is allowed and applicant is admitted to post arrest bail, subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.30,000/-[Rupees thirty thousand] and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court by my short order even number dated and these are the reasons for the same.
7. Needless to mention here that whatever stated herein above is tentative in nature and will not influence on the trial Court at the time of trial.