Iltaf Ahmad vs The State
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in two connected criminal matters arising from Crime No. 74 of 2020 under Sections 399, 402, 324, and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Crime No. 75 of 2020 under Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, registered at Police Station Sarhad. The core legal question was whether the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the circumstances of the police encounter and injuries sustained. The court held that the applicant's case called for further probe because no overt act towards the alleged preparation of an offence was committed prior to the police arrival, no injuries were sustained by the police despite an alleged exchange of gunfire, the police vehicle remained undamaged, and the applicant's injuries were sustained above the knees and purportedly inflicted by an associate. The court confirmed the grant of post-arrest bail subject to surety, establishing that dubious circumstances surrounding a police encounter and firearm injuries warrant further inquiry in favor of the accused at the bail stage.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when no overt act towards the commission of an alleged offence is established prior to police intervention?
- Does the absence of injuries to the police party during an alleged armed encounter render the prosecution's case subject to further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Whether the circumstances of injuries sustained during a police encounter can bring a case within the scope of further probe under criminal jurisprudence?
- Section 399, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 402, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 25, Sindh Arms Act 2013
ORDER
FAHIM AHM ED SIDDIQUI, J. The applicant seeks post-arrest bail in criminal bail application No. S- 536 of 2020 in a case registered against him at Police Station Sarhad pertaining to crime No.74/2020 under Sections 399, 402, 324, 353, P.P.C. and in Criminal Bail Application No.S-568 of 2020 initiated upon Crime No. 75/2020 of same Police Station under Section 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, therefore it will be appropriate that both bail applications be decided with one and same order.
2. The allegations against the applicant is that the applicant along with his associates were available at Nao road in order to commit some offence which was intimated to raiding police party by spy informer. The police party reached at the reporting place where encounter took place and during encounter the applicant received injuries while co-accused succeeded to runaway. The applicant was arrested in injured condition along with pistol for which he disclosed that the same was unlicensed, therefore, the companion case under Section 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 was also registered.
3. I have heard the valued submissions of the learned advocate for applicant/accused and Additional Prosecutor General. I have also scanned the available record with their able assistance provided during the course of arguments. From whatever articulated or placed before me, I have observed as under: i) Allegedly the applicant along with co-accused were available at same place in order to prepare for some offence but no overt act towards said offence was done prior to reaching the police party. ii) Allegedly, accused persons opened fires upon police party first which was retaliated but none from the police party received injuries. iii) The FIR of the main case indicates that after arrest of the applicant, he disclosed that he had received injuries from his own associate. iv) Reportedly police party reached at the place of incident in a vehicle but inspite of showers of bullets of accused persons the police vehicle was also remained harmless. v) The injuries sustained to the injured is said to be caused above the knees which also speaks volume about the action taken by the police.
In the existing position of affairs, the case of applicant/accused Iltaf Ahmed son of Muhammad Murad Bharo needs further probe, as such applicant is entitled for bail in both the aforementioned bail applications hence he was admitted to bail through short order dated 08.10.2020 subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) in each abovementioned bail applications to the entire satisfaction of the trial Court. Office is directed to place a signed copy of this order in the captioned connected bail application.
The above are the reasons for short order mentioned above.