SHER MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE and 4 others
This matter concerns two criminal petitions arising from a High Court order regarding bail in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite being named in the FIR, given that multiple police investigations yielded conflicting findings regarding their presence and culpability. Specifically, while the FIR attributed a direct role to the petitioners, subsequent investigations declared them innocent or merely abettors, and other co-accused were found innocent and released. The Supreme Court observed that the investigation process had been inconsistent, with four separate reports reaching different conclusions about the guilt and presence of the accused. Finding merit in the petitioners' contentions regarding the inconsistent investigation reports and the release of co-accused, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and confirmed the interim bail previously granted. The judgment reinforces the principle that where investigation reports are contradictory and inconsistent, the benefit of such doubt at the pre-trial stage may entitle an accused to the concession of bail.
- Does the existence of multiple, conflicting police investigation reports entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Can bail be granted to an accused when co-accused named in the same FIR have been declared innocent during the investigation process?
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J---This order shall dispose of the above two petitions which have been filed against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court whereby petitioners Sher Muhammad and Khan were refused bail while it was allowed to respondents No, 1 to 4 in Cr.P No, 348-L of 1993.
2. On the last date of hearing, interim bail was granted to petitioners (in Cr. P. No, 338-L/93) with the following observations:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as many as 6 persons were named in the FIR as actual participants in the assault but during investigation 4 of them were found innocent and they have since been released by the High Court. He further submits that the petitioners herein who according to the F.I.R. Had fired at the deceased were found involved by the investigating officer but only as abettors and not actual participants in the occurrence. This position is not controverted by the learned counsel for the complainant but he submits that according to the promptly lodged F.I.R. a specific role has been attributed to the petitioners and a .12 bore gun was recovered from Sher Muhammad petitioner, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail.
' Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties I admit the petitioners to interim bail till the disposal of the main petition subject to their furnishing security in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C.
Jhang."
' The learned counsel besides the aforestated contentions already recorded also submitted that there have been four investigations in the case in which in the first investigation all accused were declared innocent, so was the result in the second investigation, but during the third investigation they were found guilty. However, in the fourth investigation the S.P. Declared four persons as innocent and also was of the opinion that the petitioners (Sher Muhammad and Khan) were not present, but were involved in the case. In view of the observations made in the earlier order, we convert the petition into appeal, allow it and confirm the interim bail granted earlier.
3. There is no force in Cr.P. No, 348-L/1993 which is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- THE STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh High Court of Karachi vs Raja ABDUL REHMAN 2005 SCMR 1544
- ZAFAR Versus STATE 1999 YLR 477
- MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus THE STATE 1996 PLD 229