MUHAMMAD ZESHAN alias ALI Versus State
This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 324/336-B/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for throwing acid on the victims, resulting in severe injuries including the loss of eyes and disfigurement. The core legal questions involved whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of delayed FIR, false implication, or parity with a co-accused, and whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was prima facie connected to the heinous crime through consistent witness statements, his unexplained presence at the crime scene during odd hours, and medical evidence, and that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause. The Court laid down the principle that delay in lodging an FIR by itself is insufficient for granting bail unless supported by other circumstances, and that acid-throwing offences require heightened judicial vigilance as such acts are grave crimes.
- Whether delay in lodging an FIR is sufficient by itself for the grant of bail without supporting circumstances?
- Does acid throwing fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 disentitling the accused to bail?
- Is the rule of consistency applicable when the role of the co-accused is distinguishable from that of the applicant?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MRS. RASHIDA ASAD, J. ---Through the instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant Zeeshan alias Ali has sought post arrest bail in Crime No.170/2015 registered at Police Station Mubeena Town, for offences under sections 324/336-B/34, P.P.C.
2. Relevant facts of the prosecution case for disposal of the instant bail application are that on 18.07.2015 complainant Aftab Rehmatullah lodged report stating therein that, Raheela, his sister-in-law, was engaged to the applicant/accused which was called off by the family due to some reasons. On 17.07.2015 at about 2215 hours, while he along with his wife Nausheen, son Muhammad Hadi aged about 07 months, brother-in-law Jan Muhammad and sister-in-law, (the victim) alighted from his car, outside his residence when his wife was trying to open the lock, suddenly, accused Zeeshan alias Ali along with his companion appeared there on a motorcycle, extended life threat to victim and threw acid on them, causing serious injuries to Raheela, his son Hadi and RW Jan Muhammad. Complainant brought the injured to Hospital for treatment.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is unexplained delay of 03 hours in lodging of the FIR; no direct evidence is available against the applicant; applicant is also victim of the incident as he was also burnt with acid; the complainant instead of lodging FIR against the real culprits, falsely implicated the applicant; co-accused Agha Sohrab has already been granted bail by the trial Court therefore, rule of consistency is applicable to the applicant who is behind the bars since July 2015.
4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police to falsely implicate the applicant in this heinous crime; that as a result of incident the victims have been affected badly and young lady Raheela not only lost her eyes but her face was also disfigured; that offence with which the applicant is charged falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is not entitled for the concession of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record carefully.
6. Though at bail stage the deeper appreciation of evidence/ material placed on record is not permitted and the Court has to form its opinion on tentative assessment of record; however, the bail application cannot be decided in vacuum rather a bird view is required to be taken. According to medico legal certificates the victims, Raheela, her brother and infant nephew Hadi, have been affected badly, by the alleged cruel act of the applicant and as a result, the victim girl, lost/ damaged her both eyes and beauty of her face, the face of infant was also severely burnt. Complainant Aftab Rehmatullah and P.W Jan Muhammad in their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C., and victim Raheela in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., have nominated the applicant with specific act of throwing acid. I am not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, such argument has lost its weight in view of the admission, of the presence of applicant at the place of incident at relevant time whose hand was also burnt with acid which fact is also mentioned in the memo of arrest of applicant. Prima facie, the presence of the applicant in the odd hours of night at the place of incident without any reason showing his involvement with the commission of the offence. Further the submission of the learned counsel that co-accused has already been granted bail, hence the applicant is also entitled for grant of bail on rule of consistency, it is observed that the case of the co-accused is distinguishable from the case of the present applicant, hence, rule of consistency is not applicable to his case.
7. As far as the delay of 03 hours in lodging of the FIR is concerned, the complainant has given explanation regarding such delay. Reliance is placed upon the case reported as Mazhar Iqbal v. The State and others (2010 SCMR 1171), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under:
"No doubt, there is delay in lodging the FIR but the complainant has tried to explain such delay. However, the delay by itself is not sufficient to grant of bail unless the same is supported by other circumstances."
8. No proof has been brought on record by the applicant that FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation to involve the applicant in the instant case. Nevertheless, it is pertinent to mention here that explanation of the delay in lodging the FIR, furnished by the complainant can be examined by the trial Court after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thus in the peculiar circumstances, the instant case requires deeper appreciation of evidence, which this Court cannot undertake at this stage.
9. It is observed here that unfortunately, in our society it has become very common to commit such kind of offence in order to avenge self-inflicted ego. However, in order to curb crimes of this nature, the Courts should be more vigilant while dealing with such like cases because "burning someone with acid is a bigger crime than murder".
10. As observed above, the applicant has, prima facie, failed to make out a case for grant of bail, as sufficient evidence/material is available on record to connect the applicant with the commission of alleged offence. The offence with which the applicant is charged, falls under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, instant bail application is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. These are the reasons for the short order announced on 12.02.2020.
11. Needless, to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of applicant on merits.
ADN/M-73/Sindh Bail refused.