NAZAR MUHAMMAD Versus State
This bail application arises from a petition filed by the accused, Nazar Muhammad, seeking post-arrest bail in a double murder case after the Additional Sessions Judge rejected his initial application. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail based on the principle of consistency with a co-accused who had been granted bail, and whether the hostility of key prosecution witnesses justified the grant of bail despite the gravity of the offense. The Sindh High Court held that the accused was not entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the principle of consistency did not apply because the co-accused granted bail was not named in the First Information Report, whereas the applicant was specifically named. Furthermore, the Court held that despite the complainant and another witness turning hostile, the initial version of the case recorded in the First Information Report remained significant, particularly given the recovery of the weapon and the brutal nature of the crime. The Court affirmed that where sufficient material connects an accused to a heinous offense, prolonged custody alone does not mandate bail.
- Does the principle of consistency apply to a co-accused who was not named in the First Information Report when the applicant was?
- Can bail be granted solely on the ground that key prosecution witnesses have turned hostile?
- Does the recovery of a weapon and the gravity of a double murder charge preclude the grant of bail despite prolonged custody?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. SALMAN ANSARI, J.--- This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Nazar Muhammad whose bail application was rejected by the Order, dated 3-3-2008 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Malir on the ground that "There are sufficient material available on record to connect the accused/applicant with the offence, which is punishable to death or imprisonment for life." Hence this bail application.
2. The grounds agitated are that two eye-witnesses being the complainant Deedar Hussain and Abdul Razzak have not supported the prosecution's version of the case and had been declared hostile, co-accused Haji Abdur Rehman has been granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court, on the principle of consistency the applicant is entitled to bail, the applicant is in custody since the time of his arrest on 2-7-2004 and the trial has not concluded, the case requires further inquiry, hence bail be allowed.
3. The learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the grounds that two witnesses Adam and Ameen had fully implicated the accused in their sections 161, Cr.P.C. and 164, Cr.P.C. statements, the complainant being a jobless person has been won over and also P.W. Abdul Razzak, the applicant has been charged with committing a double murder he is not entitled to the benefit of bail.
4. Heard arguments, perused the record and the case file, primarily the applicant is not entitled to bail on the ground of consistency as the co-accused Haji Abdul Redman granted bail by the High Court was not named in the F.I.R., the applicant hrs been named in the F.I.R even though the complainant Deedar Hussain had not supported the prosecution case as given and was declared hostile by the prosecution so also P.W. Abdul Razzed yet the initial version of the case cannot be wiped out where the F.I.R. was lodged immediately on the day of the occurrence and the weapon being the hatchet was recovered from the applicant/accused having allegedly caused multiple injuries in a brutal double murder, hence as material witnesses have yet to be examined and there is sufficient material on record to connect the accused Muhammad Nazar with this offence, in my opinion even though the accused has been in custody since the time of his arrest, he is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. This bail application stands rejected accordingly.
5. H.B.T./N-50/K Bail refused.