ALLAH DINO Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was nominated in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) for an alleged offence. The applicant sought bail on the grounds that no specific role was assigned to him, there was a five-hour delay in the F.I.R., and the evidence was allegedly un-witnessed. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the material available on record. The Court held that the material presented was prima facie sufficient to connect the applicant to the alleged offence, noting that the admitted enmity between the parties and the circumstances of the applicant's involvement warranted the denial of bail at this stage. The Court dismissed the bail application but granted the applicant liberty to re-approach the Court after the examination of material witnesses. Furthermore, the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial by examining material witnesses within six months, specifically by bifurcating the applicant's case from that of the absconding co-accused.
- Is a bail application maintainable when the applicant is nominated in the F.I.R. and there is prima facie evidence connecting them to the offence?
- Can a trial court be directed to bifurcate the case of an accused from absconding co-accused to expedite proceedings?
- Does the existence of admitted enmity between parties impact the determination of a bail application?
ORDER
1. AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J .---Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. The learned counsel for applicant states that though the applicant is nominated in the F.I.R., but no role has been assigned to him and there is delay of five hours. Besides, the evidence is un-witnessed. The applicant along with two others has been shown to have committed the alleged offence. The complaint in the F.I.R. states that they saw the applicant and two others, who inquired about the deceased and then they went to the place where deceased was, and after some time they heard cries of the deceased. Once the mother and others rushed to the scene, they saw the applicants and two others scaling their presence for the scene and abusing the applicant's mother and others.
2. This prima facie sufficient material to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. The enmity is admitted between the parties and the manner, in which the applicant was shown to have been involved, is sufficient to deny the bail to applicant, at this stage. However, it will be open for applicant to repeat his bail application, material witnesses are examined by the trial Court. One year has passed, thereafter, trial Court is directed to preferably examine the material witnesses within six months after bifurcating the case of the applicant from that of absconding accused. This application, however, is dismissed.
3. The observations made by me in this bail application would not come in the way of either party during the trial.
4. H.B.T./A-105/K Bail refused.