MUHAMMAD AMIR Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Amir, who was charged with robbery and kidnapping following an incident where he and accomplices allegedly snatched cash and currency from the complainant at gunpoint and forced him to drive toward Landhi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly in light of his acquittal in a separate case registered under the Arms Ordinance. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant's prior acquittal in the separate case was based on the non-production of evidence rather than a finding on the merits. The Court observed that the prosecution’s evidence, including the applicant's capture at the scene by police following the victim's cries and his subsequent positive identification by the complainant before a Magistrate, constituted sufficient grounds to deny bail. The key principle laid down is that an acquittal in a collateral case resulting from the non-production of evidence does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in a pending case where there is strong incriminating evidence on record.
- Does an acquittal in a separate case based on the non-production of evidence entitle an accused to bail in a pending criminal matter?
- Is the identification of an accused by a complainant before a Magistrate sufficient to deny bail in a robbery case?
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
1. According to the prosecution during the night intervening 19 and 20 of December, 2003 when complainant Muhammad Idrees stopped his Civic Honda Car Registration No.AAC‑291 at signal near Bombino Cinema Saddar when three bandits who were on motorcycle came close to him. Two of them opened the door of the car and occupied the seat. At pistol point cash Rs.23,000 and US Dollor $ 1500 were snatched from him. He was then directed, to drive the car towards Landhi. On the way at New Town Police Station the complainant shouted and the car also went out of control and its engine went off. At that time one of the bandits got down and tried to run away but was captured by the police alongwith his T.T. pistol. The other ran away after causing bullet injury to the complainant on his leg. The captive disclosed his name as Amir son of Muhammad Shafi. After that the present case and another case under section 13‑D of Arms Ordinance were registered against the captive.
2. After the investigation the challan was presented in the Court. The bail plea of the applicant could not succeed before the learned trial Court, therefore, present application has been filed.
3. The main arguments on behalf of the applicant advanced before this Court are that he has been acquitted in the case registered under section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance. On query the learned Advocate for the applicant informed that in fact the applicant was acquitted without recording the evidence, as the same was not produced before the learned trial Court. Thus, the acquittal was not on merits.
4. The evidence on record is that the applicant is one of the bandits having robbed the complainant of cash and then made him hostage for taking them towards Landhi. He was captured while running after arrival of police on the cries of the victim/complainant. For confirmation the identification test was also arranged and the complainant is said to have rightly picked him out in presence of the Magistrate. In presence of that evidence the acquittal of the applicant for non‑production of the evidence does not justify the grant of bail to him in this case. Application, dismissed.
5. H.B.T./M‑15/K Bail application dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- IRSHAD ALI vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 2861