RASHID NAEEM alias RASHID MULLA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Rashid Naeem alias Rashid Mulla, who sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the lack of direct evidence connecting him to the alleged offence, particularly noting that his name was absent from the initial F.I.R. and the only evidence against him was a subsequent statement by the complainant, which the defence argued was an afterthought. The State Counsel, upon reviewing the police papers and consulting with the Investigating Officer, conceded that there was no sufficient evidence to connect the applicant to the crime. The Court held that the applicant had successfully established a case for further inquiry, thereby entitling him to the concession of bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution admits a lack of sufficient evidence to connect an accused to the commission of an offence, and the evidence relied upon is not supported by other direct or circumstantial proof, the accused is entitled to the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the initial F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the State concedes that there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused to the commission of the offence?
- Can bail be granted when the only evidence against the accused is a subsequent statement by the complainant not supported by other direct or circumstantial evidence?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. The learned counsel for the applicant has pressed this application for bail on the ground' that the F.I.R. Was lodged by complainant on 25-5-1998 does not disclose the name of the applicant in any manner and has further submitted that there is no eyewitness against the applicant to connect the applicant with commission of offence except that a further statement of complainant was recorded by the police during investigation. The complainant has said that he saw the deceased in company of applicant and others while going towards river side and on seeing them the complainant told the deceased to be back immediately. The learned counsel has submitted that this piece of evidence is afterthought as the complainant has not disclosed this fact in the F.I.R. He has further submitted that on 15-6-1998 the applicant was remanded to judicial custody till 27-6- 1998 and then no challan was. Submitted till 25-11-1998. The bail application of the present applicant is rejected by the trial Court on the ground that matter was still under investigation and the offence was an heinous one. The learned counsel has placed the reliance on the case of Abdul Salim v. The State reported in 1998 SCM R 1578.The learned State Counsel after going through the police papers has categorically stated that there is no evidence against the applicant except the above said piece of evidence which is not supported by any other direct or circumstantial evidence. He further submits that the Investigating Officer is present in Court and makes a similar statement that there is no evidence against the present applicant and challan has been put up against the applicant only on 25-11-1998. Under these circumstances the learned counsel for the State does not oppose the grant of bail to the applicant.
2. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case-law cited by the learned counsel. The case-law cited by the Advocate appears to be applicable in the present case and further that the learned State Counsel has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant as there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the commission of offence.
3. ' Under these circumstances I am of the view that the applicant has succeeded to make out the case of further enquiry which entitles him to the concession of grant of bail. Accordingly I allow the application and grant bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R.
4. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.