MIR HAZAR MALIK vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing his post-arrest bail application in a case involving robbery and murder. The FIR initially did not name the petitioner; he was implicated later based on a subsequent statement by the complainant, which relied on information from witnesses, and a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from another witness claiming to have seen the petitioner fleeing the scene. The petitioner's counsel argued that the initial FIR omitted the petitioner's name and that the prosecution's reliance on an alleged extra-judicial confession was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the circumstances, converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner. The court held that where the prosecution's case relies on evidence that requires further scrutiny—such as the delayed implication of an accused and reliance on extra-judicial confessions—the matter falls within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the bail provisions, entitling the accused to the concession of bail.
- Does the omission of an accused's name in the initial FIR, followed by a subsequent implication, constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can an extra-judicial confession alone serve as sufficient evidence to deny bail to an accused?
- Under what circumstances may a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner has called into question the order passed by a learned Judge in the High Court of Sindh, dated 21-9-1998, dismissing bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case are that, on 22-1-1998 at about 04-30 hours, F.I.R. Was lodged at Police Station N.F. Shikarpur, by one Abdul Qaddus son of Illahi Bux Soomro alleging that, on the said date at about 02-00 hours, four persons had entered the house of his brother, Adul Khaliq Soomro, after knocking at the door. At that time Moula Bux brother-in-law of Abdul Khaliq Soomro and Mir Hazar Malik, the petitioner, were also sleeping in the same house. When Abdul Khaliq opened the door, the said persons forced their entry into the house and took away Rs,30,500 which were lying in an almirah. However, when they were leaving the house Abdul Quddus tried to resist them upon which they fired at him on a result of which the latter died on account of the injuries received by him.
3. On 23-1-1998, complainant Abdul Qudus got his further statement recorded at the police station alleging that from the information received by him from P.Ws. Abdul Rauf and Taj Muhammad, it transpired that the alleged crime had been committed by the petitioner as prior to the commission of the said offence, the petitioner, who was cousin of the wife of the deceased, had been stopped by the deceased to visit his house.
4. On 7-2-1998 the Investigating Officer got statement of one Kher Muhammad Soomro recorded which indicated that the petitioner had been seen coming out of the house of deceased Abdul Khaliq at the time of the alleged incident. Subsequently on 19-2-1998 the statement of Kher Muhammad was also got recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C.
5. It is on the basis of such evidence that the bail applications respectively filed by the petitioner first before the learned rial Court and then before the High Court have been dismissed.
6. Mr. Abdul Fateh Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner, has inter alia argued that the name of the petitioner did not originally transpire in the F.I.R. But it was only subsequently that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the said crime. In support of its second version, the prosecution has relied upon extra-judicial confession allegedly given by the petitioner to P.Ws. Abdul Rauf and Taj Muhammad but, according to the learned counsel it cannot be relied upon alone as a- strong piece of evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the case requires further inquiry and the learned Judge in the High Court was in error while dismissing the bail application filed by the petitioner.
7. Although, the petitioner has been resisted by Mr. Saleem Samo, learned A.A.-G., who appeared on behalf of the State, but in view of the circumstances, the petition is converted into an appeal and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUMTAZ alias KAKA vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 2146
- AKHTAR alias GAJO and another vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 125
- LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE 2000 YLR 2604