MUHAMMAD HASHIM Versus THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court on behalf of two accused persons, Muhammad Hashim Jamali and Muhammad Hashim Panhwar, following the dismissal of their bail pleas by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu. The prosecution case involves an alleged attempted robbery where the complainant resisted, identified the culprits, and injured one of them in self-defence. The core legal question pertained to whether sufficient incriminating evidence existed to warrant the continued pre-trial incarceration of the applicants. The court evaluated the record and noted that the State counsel conceded that no evidence whatsoever had been collected against the second applicant, Muhammad Hashim Panhwar. Consequently, the High Court held that the said applicant had made out a case for bail, granting him post-arrest bail subject to surety, while the bail application for the first applicant was dismissed as not pressed. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution concedes the total absence of incriminating evidence against an accused during investigation, further inquiry is warranted, entitling the accused to bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the prosecution concedes that no evidence has been collected against him during investigation?
- Can a bail application be dismissed as not pressed when the counsel chooses not to press it at the relevant time?
ORDER
1. Prosecution case is that on 4-11-2002 Muharram Ali Abro was returning from Dadu to his village on a motorcycle. He had his licensed Revolver with him. On the way at 7-00 p.m., when he arrived near village Imam Bux Abro, three bandits intercepted him and attempted to rob him of his motorcycle. In the light of the motorcycle, he identified the culprits to be Hashim Jamali equipped with Lathi, Deenoo Lund with pistol and Daud Lund with Lathi. Moharram Ali resisted and was given Lathi blows. In his defence he opened fire, which hit Hashim Jamali. The culprits then ran away.
2. Moharram Ali then reported the matter to Dadu Police and was referred to Civil Hospital, Dadu for examination and treatment. On 5-11-2002 at 12-15 noon his F.I.R. was registered. Accused Hashim Jamali was also treated at Civil Hospital, Dadu.
3. After investigation, Hashim Jmali, Hashim Panhwar and Roshan Abro were challaned. Deenoo and Daud were let off being innocent.
4. The bail applications of Muhammad Hashim Jamali and Muhammad Hashim Panhwar were dismissed by common order dated 6-11-2002 by the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu. After that present application has been filed.
5. As regards Hashim Panhwar, his learned Advocate has contended that no evidence, whatsoever, connecting this applicant has been collected by the prosecution. Mr. Anwar Ansari, learned State Counsel also states that no evidence has been collected against Muhammad Hashim Panhwar. He (Muhammad Hashim Panhwar), therefore, has a case for bail. Bail granted to him. He shall be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. Bail application of Muhammad Hashim Jamali has not been pressed by the learned Advocate for the time being and the same is dismissed as not pressed.
7. H.B.T./M-524/K Order accordingly.