NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE
The applicant Noor Muhammad sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 51 of 1999 registered under sections 324, 353 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Shahrah-e-Noor Jehan, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the case against the applicant, involving an alleged police encounter and recovery of an unlicensed pistol, warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court considered the contentions that no empties were recovered from the spot and that the State did not oppose the grant of bail. The court held that the case called for further inquiry and accordingly admitted the applicant to bail upon furnishing the requisite surety bonds, laying down the principle that where material aspects of a police encounter are subject to doubt and the State does not oppose bail, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail pending trial.
- Whether the circumstances of an alleged police encounter involving doubtful recoveries warrant further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the State does not oppose the bail application?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
.Applicant Noor Muhammad seeks bail in Crime No. 51 of 1999 registered under sections 324, 353 ‑and 34, P.P.C. at Police Station, Shahrah‑e‑Noor Jehan, Karachi.
2. Precisely the facts of the prosecution case are that Inspector Jawed lqbal, on 20‑4‑1999, S:H.O. of Police Station, Shahrah‑e‑Noor Jehan was busy on patrolling within his jurisdiction, when at about 0645 hrs he saw two suspects riding on a motorcycle.. He spotted them to stop, upon which motorcyclist started firing upon police and police also retaliated in self -defence.. Consequently the rider was injured and motorcycle fell and both the culprits were apprehended and‑from their possession .33 bore pistols were also recovered. On inquiry they disclosed their names to be applicant Muhammad Noor and injured Muzaffar Hussain‑ Shah.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that no incident of this sort took place and the applicant was arrested from his house. He further disclosed that not even a single empty has been recovered from the place of vardat, as such the factum of encounter requires further inquiry. According to him this act at the most be a case of 13‑D of Arms Ordinance as unlicensed pistol was said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. With regard to motorcycle it is argued that though according to the complainant the said motorcycle was a stolen one, .yet he has not been able to show any F.I.R, in that respect, as such the allegation against the applicant requires further inquiry.
4. On the other side, the learned counsel for the State does not oppose the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and frankly concedes, to the grant of bail.
5. Accordingly the applicant is allowed bail. He shall be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
N.H.Q./N‑26/K
Bail allowed.