MUHAMMAD IMRAN Versus State
This bail application arose from a criminal case where the applicants were accused of murdering a doctor in 1996. The prosecution's case relied on an eye-witness, Mehmood Khan, who surfaced six years after the incident and identified the applicants in a parade. Notably, the complainant's initial First Information Report explicitly stated that no other persons were present at the scene. Furthermore, the applicants were never subjected to identification by the complainant. The trial court had initially refused bail based on the identification by the late-appearing witness. The High Court, however, found that the significant delay in the witness's appearance, the contradiction with the First Information Report, and the failure to have the complainant identify the accused created serious doubts regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court held that the matter required further inquiry under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court concluded that the applicants were entitled to bail, as the prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds for believing the applicants were guilty of the offence.
- Does the appearance of an eye-witness six years after an incident, contrary to the initial First Information Report, warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the failure to subject an accused to identification by the complainant a relevant factor in determining the reasonableness of grounds for bail?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case relies on evidence that contradicts the initial First Information Report?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.-- Heard Messrs Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, Advocate for the applicants and Sohail Jabbar, State Counsel. The latter has opposed bail.
2. According to the prosecution, on 3-6-1996, at 2210 hours, near Pakistan Medicos Health Centre, within jurisdiction of police station Mominabad, Karachi, two young men killed Dr. Muhammad Haider alias Babar by making fires upon him, while he and his sister's son complainant Naveed Raza, after closing their clinic situated in Sadaf Colony, Orangi Town, Karachi, were in a car on their way back to home situated in North Nazimabad. The deceased was driving the car and the complainant was sitting by his side on the front seat. The assassins, riding a motorcycle, overtook them and the man having a pistol sitting behind the driver of the motorcycle made four or five fires upon the deceased. The deceased was taken to hospital where he died at about 3-00 a.m. The matter was reported to police on 4-6-1996 at 1700 hours. The first information report (F.I.R.) specifically mentioned that no other person was present there at the time of incident.
3. On 14-3-2006 i.e. after about six years of the incident, the applicants were arrested and on 18-3-2002 one Mehmood Khan appeared before police for the first time and claimed that he had also witnessed the incident. He is shown to have identified the applicants in an identification parade held before a Magistrate on 21-3-2002. However, strangely enough, they were not put to the identification of the complainant. They have remained in custody for over three and half years without any substantial progress in their trial. The trial Court has refused them bail only on the ground that they were identified by Mehmood Khan introduced as an eye-witness for the first time after six years.
4. The facts that the applicants were not put to the identification of the complainant and the so-called eye-witness Mehmood Khan appeared before police for the first time after six years of the incident, coupled with complainant's specific statement in the F.I.R. that no other person was present there at the time of incident, militate against reasonableness of the grounds put forward by the prosecution for believing the applicants guilty of the offence. It requires only further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898, and the applicants are entitled to bail. It was for these reasons, recorded now, that the applicants, by a short order passed on 25-9-2006, were directed to be released on bail each on giving one surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 and personal bond in the like amount to the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-75/K Bail granted.