MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus State
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by Muhammad Arif seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered regarding armed robbery under the law. The core legal question concerns whether reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused to the alleged crime based on the available evidence, specifically considering the absence of an identification parade and the admissibility of joint pointations and open recoveries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's evidence, comprising a joint pointation of a public place and the recovery of a number plate from an accessible area on joint pointation, was prima facie inadmissible, and the failure of the investigating agency to conduct an identification parade by the sole eyewitness weakened the case. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, ruling that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the accused was guilty at this stage. The key principle laid down is that weak and prima facie inadmissible evidence, such as joint pointations of accessible places and recoveries from open spaces without an identification parade, entitles an accused to further inquiry and the grant of bail.
- Whether joint pointation of a public place accessible to everyone constitutes admissible evidence against an accused?
- Does the failure of the investigating agency to hold an identification parade by the sole eyewitness entitle the accused to bail?
- Whether the recovery of a motorcycle number plate from an open space on joint pointation provides reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty?
ORDER
ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J .--Heard Messrs. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi Advocate for the applicant and Sardaruddin Qureshi, State Counsel. The latter opposes bail and contends that as a matter of fact the applicant was involved in the crime but the Investigating Officer has spoiled the case and destroyed the evidence.
2. According to the prosecution, on 9-5-2006, at 0100 hours, on main road in front of Ladies Park, Sector 12-L, Orangi Town Karachi, three robbers, armed with pistols, robbed, on gun-point, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal of his motorcycle, mobile phone, glucometer and cash of Rs.3,500. He reported the matter to police on 14-5-2006 i.e. after five days saying that the robbers were not known to him and by appearance they appeared to be Bangalis or Burmees.
3. On 15-5-2006, police of Police Station Hub arrested co-accused Bahawal Khan and recovered engine and other parts of motorcycle from his possession. On interrogation, Bahawal Khan allegedly told police that applicant Muhammad Arif was also with him in .the commission of robbery. He was arrested on 23-5-2006 and on the next day i.e. on 24-5-2006 the number plate of the motorcycle was recovered from the bank of Hub river on his and co-accused Asif's joint pointation. It was lying open near the trunk of an acacia tree. On the same day, they allegedly jointly pointed out the place of incident also.
4. The learned State Counsel confirms that no effort was made to get the applicant identified by the victim, who was the only eye-witness in the case.
5. Learned counsel for the ' applicant contends that according to the description mentioned in the Hulia Form prepared by police itself, the applicant is Pathan in fact as well as by appearance and it was for that reason that the victim was not called for identification.
6. The most important evidence in the case would have been the evidence of the victim. The investigating agency has chosen to keep him out, for which there can be no justification. The prosecution relies upon only two things. First, joint pointation of the place of incident, which was not a secret and had already been visited by the Investigating Officer on 15-5-2006, and secondly, evidence of recovery of number plate lying open near a tree on the bank of Hub river, a place accessible to everybody and not in applicant's possession and that too on joint pointation of the applicant and co-accused Asif. Prima facie both the pieces of evidence are inadmissible.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant guilty of the offence. He is, therefore, entitled to bail. Accordingly, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-65/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.