SHABBIR HUSSAIN Versus State
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Shabbir Hussain, in connection with Crime No. 252 of 2006, registered under sections 353, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the accused and a co-accused were apprehended by police after an exchange of fire. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the lack of evidence regarding his status as a habitual offender. The Court observed that the allegation of firing was attributed to the co-accused, not the applicant, and that the State failed to substantiate claims that the applicant was a habitual offender despite being granted an opportunity to do so. Consequently, the Court held that the case against the applicant fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court granted bail, establishing the principle that bail should be granted when the prosecution fails to substantiate claims of previous criminal history or habitual offending, particularly when the specific overt act of violence is attributed to a co-accused.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the allegation of firing is attributed solely to a co-accused?
- Can bail be denied on the grounds of being a habitual offender if the prosecution fails to produce evidence of pending cases?
- Does a case involving ineffective firing and lack of evidence regarding habitual offending constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--- Through this application applicant/accused Shabbir Hussain seeks bail in Crime No.252 of 2006 of Police Station Kharadar, Karachi registered under sections- 353/324/34, P.P.C.
2. Briefly stated the facts as reflected from the F.I.R. are that a police party while patrolling reached at Marriott Road found two persons in suspicious condition and tried to search them but one of the accused namely Sheeraz started firing with intention to kill. The police party also shot two fires and consequently the accused persons were overpowered and apprehended. One TT pistol with two live bullets two mobile phones and Rs.20 were recovered from accused Sheeraz and one revolver with two live rounds and one Nokia mobile phone were recovered from the present applicant.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant/accused is involved in an ineffective firing and even ineffective firing has been alleged to co-accused Sheeraz and not to the present applicant and consequently he is entitled to the concession of bail. As to the recovery of TT pistol learned counsel states that a separate case under section 13-D Arms Ordinance is pending adjudication. In the circumstances, learned counsel has prayed that the present case is one of further enquiry and the applicant/accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the grant of bail.
5. The order of the trial Court reflects that the main consideration which prevailed upon it for not allowing the concession of bail appears to be that the applicant is an habitual offender. However, same was the contention by the learned counsel for the State appearing before this Court and consequently on 26-12-2006 Investigating Officer was directed to appear and to disclose as to whether any case is pending against the present applicant. However, despite opportunity, the Investigating Officer has not appeared nor learned counsel for the State is in a position to disclose the pendency of any other case against the present applicant. Since the present applicant is involved in a case of ineffective firing and that allegation is against co-accused and not the present 'applicant. I consider the applicant to be entitled for concession of bail. Consequently, the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs.2 lacs and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. H.B.T./S-29/K ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.
Cited by 3 cases
- Hyder Abbas S/O Gul Hassan, Hyder Abbas S/O Gul Hassan, Hyder Abbas 2023 SHC 616
- ASIF ALI ZANGEJO JATOI vs The STATE 2017 MLD 46
- ASIF ZANGEJO JATOI vs THE STATE PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 308