ABDIJL QADIR vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, involving an allegation of robbery and murder. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in lodging the First Information Report, the reliability of identification evidence during night hours, and the principle of consistency regarding co-accused persons. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the rule of consistency, noting that a co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail by the Court. Furthermore, the Court considered the applicant's arguments regarding the fourteen-hour delay in the FIR and the evidentiary challenges associated with night-time identification. Consequently, the bail application was accepted, and the applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing solvent surety, maintaining judicial uniformity in the treatment of similarly situated co-accused.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused with similar allegations has already been granted bail?
- Can bail be granted when there is a significant delay in lodging the First Information Report?
- Is identification of accused persons via torchlight during night hours considered weak evidence in bail proceedings?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17(4), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant seeks bail in Crime No,187 of 1999 of Police Station New Foujdari, Shikarpur registered under sections 302, P.P.C. Read with 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance.
2. ' Briefly the case of prosecution is that on 10-10-1999 at about 1140 hours one Karim Bux son of Abdul Razzaq lodged his report at above police station stating therein that his house is constructed with straw having face towards southern side. His house is surrounded by hedge having entrance way from southern side which they do not use to close at night time. On last night his uncle Muhammad Usman and nephew Ali Gohaf came to his house for visit purpose. After eating night meal he along with his son Muhammad Shahban and his guest after chit chat went to sleep in his house and light was on. At about 2-30 a.m. He wake up on barking of dogs and saw seven culprits duly armed with klashnikov standing in courtyard of his house and he flashed his torch and raised cries of thief. On his cries his son Muhammad Shahban uncle Muhammad Usman and nephew Ali Gohar woke up.
3. He saw on torch light and identified said culprits to be Shahmir, Nazar, Muhammad and two sons of Umar Mahar whose names he do not remember all four were Mahar by caste and three unidentified persons who while untethering rope of buffalow started taking away their buffalow and issued them threats to sit down and keep silence, hence they due to fear remained silent. When all seven accused took away his buffalow and went outside of his house then his son followed the accused and they also while putting flash of their torch followed the accused. The accused on seeing his son following them accused Shahmir Mahar fired shot from his Kalshnikov upon his son which hit him and he fell down at entrance way of his house. Then all the accused by show of force took away his buffalows. They then saw that his son received fire arm injury below naval of his abdomen and injury was bleeding and he expired. Due to odd hours of night and non-availability of conveyance they kept the dead body in his house. At morning time he while arranging conveyance informed his relatives and then took away the dead body of his son towards Police Station for lodging report. He further stated that the said accused with their common intention/object duly armed with deadly weapons by show of force took away his one Bhori colour buffalow from his house and on following the accused the accused Shahmir fired shot from his Klashnikov upon his son and committed his Qatl-i-Amd.
4. ' Bail application was moved before Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur which was dismissed on 10-7-2000. Hence this bail application. I have heard the learned counsel for applicant and learned State counsel at length and perused the record available carefully. It is contended by the counsel for applicant that there is delay of 14 hours in lodging the F.I.R. And no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for the said delay. He has further contended that identification on the basis of torch light and lantern in the dark hours of the night is very difficult rather impossible and this is the weakest type of evidence. He has urged that the complainant has given the name of accused Shahmir who has given fire-arm injury to deceased, and the applicant has been asolved in the case on the basis of statement of Ali Gohar (P.W.) in his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement recorded after one month of the incident. He has pointed out that co-accused Muhammad Umar has already been granted bail by this Court on 12-6-2000 the case of the present applicant is on same footting.
5. ' The learned State counsel when confronted with the above facts and legal position half heartedly conceded to grant of bail to the applicant.
6. Since I had already granted bail to co-accused and following the rule of consistency, I accordingly accept this bail application. The applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs .1,00,040 .With P.R. Bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. ' Above are the detailed reasons for the short order announced on 27-11-2000.