MEHAR alias FAZAL MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by three applicants facing trial for various offences, including murder and attempted murder, before the Sessions Judge, Larkana. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given that they were not named in the First Information Report (FIR) and the identification parade was conducted 18 days after the incident. The Court held that while the identification parade alone might be insufficient, the recovery of blood-stained hatchets from two of the applicants, corroborated by medical evidence of injuries consistent with such weapons, provided sufficient grounds to deny bail to those specific individuals. However, regarding the third applicant, from whom only a non-blood-stained lathi was recovered, the Court found his case distinguishable and granted him bail. The key principle laid down is that where identification evidence is potentially weak due to delay, the presence of incriminating physical evidence, such as blood-stained weapons linked to the injuries sustained by prosecution witnesses, serves as sufficient corroboration to disentitle an accused to bail.
- Does an identification parade conducted 18 days after the incident, in the absence of a description in the FIR, automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Can the recovery of blood-stained weapons provide sufficient corroboration to deny bail even if the accused was not named in the FIR?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the only evidence against them is an identification parade conducted after a significant delay and no incriminating physical evidence is recovered?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13(d), Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act 1871
ORDER
1. ' This is an application praying for the grant of bail to the 3 applicants who have been challaned in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, for offences under sections 302/307/323/304/364/34, 13(d) Arms Ordinance, and 24, Cattle Trespass Act, on the basis of a first information report which was lodged at Dokri Police Station on 29-4-1977. The applicants had earlier moved the learned Sessions Judge for grant of bail to them, but the learned Sessions Judge rejected their application and hence they have come to this Court.
2. ' The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the 3 applicants were admittedly not named in the F. I. R., which merely mentions that there were 3 unidentified persons. He further submits that though the applicants are said to have been identified in an identification test held before a IIIrd Class Magistrate, this test was held after 18 days and is therefore of not much value, specially as the description of the culprits has not been given in the F. I. R. On these twin grounds, he submits that the three applicants are entitled to bail.
3. ' The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, stated that two bloodstained hatchets were recovered from applicants Mehar and Dhani Bux and consequently those recoveries corroborated the identification test. Further corroboration to the ocular testimony and the recovery of hatchets is provided by the medical evidence which shows that two prosecution witnesses, namely, Miral and Muhammad Hashim, were found to have injuries on their persons which apparently had been caused with the blunt side of a hatchet. He accordingly submitted that these two applicants were not entitled to grant of bail. So far as applicant Haji is concerned, the learned Advocate-General conceded that the question of granting bail to him may be considered since only a lathi was recovered from his possession which was not blood-stained.
4. In view of the fact that applicants Mehar and Dhani Bux were picked out in an identification test held before a Magistrate and furthermore there I evidence of recovery of blood-stained hatchets from their possession, with A which apparently they had caused injuries to P. Ws. Miral and Muhammad Hashim, I would reject the application for grant of bail to them. As regards Haji, the only material evidence against him is the identification test which B was held 18 days after the incident. Admittedly, no blood-stained weapon was recovered from his possession. His case, in my opinion, is therefore, distinguishable and I would grant bail to him in the sum of Rs, 10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana.
Cited by 6 cases
- RASHID BHUTTI vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 802
- AZHAR WAHEED vs THE STATE and another 2010 P Cr. L J 388
- INAYAT MASIH vs THE STATE 2006 YLR 2656
- MAZHAR alias MAZAR BABAR and others vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 3138
- SHAFIQUE AHMED and 4 others vs THE STATE 2002 P Cr. L J 518
- NABI BUX alias NABU vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 1123