ZULFIQAR Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged in a criminal case involving forty-one individuals for firing, which resulted in the deaths of six persons. The applicant, initially declared an absconder, was arrested and subsequently sought bail on the grounds of alibi and consistency with co-accused who had already been granted bail. The applicant provided official documentation from the Pakistan Army confirming his posting at Risalpur and his presence on duty during the date of the incident. The trial court had previously rejected the bail application despite this evidence. Upon review, the High Court noted that no weapon was recovered from the applicant, no identification parade was conducted, and the State counsel did not oppose the bail application. Furthermore, the court observed that co-accused facing similar allegations had been granted bail. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant had made a case for further inquiry and admitted him to bail, emphasizing the principle of consistency and the strength of the alibi evidence provided.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when official documentation establishes a plea of alibi for the date of the incident?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused facing similar allegations have been granted bail?
- Can bail be granted where no weapon is recovered from the accused and no identification parade is conducted?
ORDER
1. DR. QAMAR-UD-DIN BOHRA, J .----In the instant case, allegation is against 41 persons that they made firing on the complainant party which resulted in killing of six persons. The F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Lakhi Ghulam Shah on 18-6-2002 against 41 persons. The present applicant has been shown in the challan as absconder along with 38 persons. On 16-1-2007 he was arrested by police from his house. Then he moved bail application before the trial Court which was rejected on 2-10-2007. Thereafter, he preferred the bail application before this Court bearing No.569 of 2007 which was also rejected with the observation that the applicant/accused can repeat bail before the trial Court by taking plea of alibi which was not taken in earlier bail application. Then applicant/accused repeated bail application before the trial Court with the ground that his case is identical to the case of co-accused Mumtaz who has already been admitted on bail by the trial Court and moreover on the date of incident he was not present in the City as he was serving in Pak Army and was posted at Lahore. In support of his contention he also produced a letter which was sent for confirmation by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the Lieutenant Colonel that applicant was posted at STR of Basic Try Bn.2 Engr Centre Risalpur Cantt. He was not on leave from 18-6-2002 to 10-10-2002. Despite that the trial Court did not believe the plea of alibi and rejected the bail application vide order, dated 27-6-2008.
2. Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, learned State counsel did not oppose for the bail and he conceded.
3. Admittedly, there is common allegation of firing against 41 persons in the F.I.R. and the police challaned 38 persons out of which co-accused Mumtaz admitted on bail by the trial Court and Peer Dino admitted on bail by this Court whereas other accused are still absconders. After arrest of the applicant/accused no weapon has been recovered from him nor he was put to identification. The certificate, produced already shows that on the alleged date of incident applicant was not in the city and was posted in Pak Army at Risalpur.
4. In light of the above, applicant/accused is admitted on bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. H.B.T./Z-25/K Bail granted.