MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus TIE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Arif, who was charged under Sections 353, 392, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving an alleged robbery and exchange of gunfire. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the arrest and the evidentiary material collected by the prosecution. The Court observed that although the incident occurred in broad daylight, no injuries were sustained by any party, and the firing was ineffective. Crucially, the Court noted that no incriminating items were recovered from the applicant's possession, despite his apprehension at the scene. Furthermore, the State counsel did not oppose the bail application. Consequently, the Court held that the case against the applicant required further inquiry and admitted him to bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the prosecution fails to recover incriminating evidence and the alleged firing resulted in no injuries, the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no incriminating items are recovered from their possession despite being apprehended at the scene?
- Does the absence of injuries in an alleged firing incident constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Can bail be granted when the State counsel does not oppose the application?
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. This is an application for bail in a case under sections 353, 392, 324 and 34, P.P.C. (F.I.R. No.98 of 2001 of Police Station Ferozabad), which is pending before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 28‑2‑2001, complainant Muhammad Aslam alongwith his driver, Chowkidar Ameer Khan and P. W . Naseer was coming to his house in his Suzuki High Roof Vehicle at about 12‑30 p.m. near a Bungalow No.32, Block 6, PECHS, he was intercepted by two persons driving a motorcycle, one armed with a pistol asked the complainant to stop. Having fired two shots, the assailant on the pistol point snatched a black coloured bag, which contained some documents. On the cries and commotion raised by the complainant party, a police constable was attracted who was also fired at by the assailant but the fire missed and during the exchange of firing one of the assailants namely the applicant Muhammad Arif was apprehended and the other namely Nazeer escaped. In the meanwhile a police mobile with an S.‑I. Police arrived there, picked up the applicant and the motorcycle and went away to police station. The complainant Muhammad Aslam alongwith P.C. Jan Muhammad reached the police station and lodged the report.
3. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the case against the applicant was false. It was instituted against the applicant at the instance of complainant Muhammad Aslam, who has got enmity with the applicant since long. It was argued that such defence was taken by the accused before police as well as at the initial stage of the trial. It was further urged that nothing has been secured from the possession of found empty‑handed and the complainant's bag robbed has also not been secured from the possession of the applicant, hence the case of the applicant would call for further enquiry. It was lastly urged that all the P.Ws. in the case were police officials Reliance was placed upon PLD 1972 SC 277 and 1977 Mr. Muhammad Ismail Memon, learned counsel appearing for the State did not oppose the bail plea and had conceded to the prayer.
4. Admittedly, it was broad‑daylight incident. Though exchange of firing is alleged yet no injury was received by any of the parties. Nothing was secured from the possession of the applicant, who is shown to have been arrested on the spot. It is a case of ineffective firing. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, bail is granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. Bail was granted to the applicant vide short order, dated 7‑6‑2001. Above are the reasons for the same.
6. H. B: T. /M‑51 /K Bail granted.