SIKANDER ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sikander Ali, in connection with an FIR registered under the Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the lack of incriminating evidence against him, despite his prior absconsion. The prosecution case originated from an FIR against three unidentified persons. While co-accused were previously tried and acquitted, the applicant was arrested later. The applicant argued that his name was absent from the FIR, he was not implicated by eye-witnesses during the trial of the co-accused, and there was no judicial or extra-judicial confession. The State conceded these points. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, emphasizing that the mere factum of absconsion, in the absence of other incriminating evidence, is insufficient to disentitle an accused person from the grant of bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to the furnishing of a bond.
- Is the mere factum of absconsion sufficient to deny bail to an accused when there is no other incriminating evidence?
- Can an accused be granted bail if their name does not appear in the FIR and they were not implicated by eye-witnesses during the trial of co-accused?
- Section 17/3, Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
1. By this order I propose to dispose of Criminal Bail Application No.492 of 2000, in a case bearing crime F1.R.. No. 125 of 1994, Police Station Market, under sections 17/3, Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, 452, P.P.C. Read with section 13, D.A.O. 1965. Applicant's bail plea was dismissed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 11- 9-2000.
2. The brief history of prosecution case unfolded in F.I.R. Shows that complainant Kaukab Habib Memon appeared at Police Station Market and lodged a report against 3 unidentified persons.
3. Following the investigation Umed A.I and A.I Hassan were arrested and they were sent up to stand trial in the Court of learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. During the course of trial accused Umed A.I Sheikh and A.I Hassan Mirhabar were granted bail vide order dated 6-2-1996 but thereafter accused Umed A.I jumped out of bail and was declared as an absconder. The case proceeded against accused A.I Hassan and he was acquitted vide judgment dated 25-4-2000.
4. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested on 10-8-2000 a6d after usual investigation he was sent up to stand trial in the Court of learned Vith Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties 'and perused the record. It has, been argued that there is absolutely no evidence against the present applicant inasmuch as his mine does not appear in the F.I.R., he has not been implicated by the eye-witnesses namely complainant Kaukab Habib and Ghulam Murtaza who were examined during' the trial of accused A.I- Hassan. He further submits that there is no other evidence by way of judicial or extra judicial confession. All that which goes against the applicant is the factum of absconsion which alone could not disentitle the applicant for grant of bail to him.
6. Learned counsel for the State concedes to the above legal position and raised no objection for the grant of bail.
7. Looking to the above background, I grant bail to the applicant Sikander A.I Shaikh in the sum of Rs.100,000 (one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.