DILDAR alias DILOO LEGHARI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused Dildar alias Diloo Leghari facing trial under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in Crime No. 64 of 2001 registered at Police Station Johi. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail in a case involving delayed second FIR, conflicting versions, and an allegation of ineffective firing. The Sindh High Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the prior misleading FIR filed by the accused party which was disposed of in 'B' class upon investigation, and that ineffective firing simpliciter in rampant heinous crimes furnishes no ground for bail. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application. The key principle laid down is that ineffective firing in serious offences does not automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail, particularly where delay is attributable to conflicting or misleading earlier reports.
- Whether ineffective firing simpliciter furnishes a ground for seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Does delay in recording an FIR warrant bail when the delay is caused by a prior misleading FIR filed by the accused party?
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused is specifically implicated for firing at the complainant party during the incident?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Accused is facing trial in Crime No,64 of 2001, Police Station Johi under section 302, P.P.C. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that this is a case of two versions as earlier F.I.R. Of the same incident was reported as F.I.R. No,43 of 2001 wherein the allegation against the applicant party were made on `the same date. However, subsequently, second F.I.R. Was registered after over two months w,e,f, on 4-7-2001. Even in this F.I.R. The allegations against the present applicant is of causing fire from his rifle at the complainant party. It is contended by the learned counsel that deceased Misri died at the hand of Peeral Jamali who fired at deceased. According to him it is a case of ineffective firing.
2. ' Learned State Counsel, however, states that the accused party deceitfully got registered F.I.R.
3. No,43 of 2001 in order to implicate the complainant party which on further investigation by the prosecution was found to be false and it was ordered to be disposed of in "B" Clause and direction to record subject F.I.R. Against the present culprits. A statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded wherein the present applicants have been implicated.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. Since apparently there appears to be delay in recording the F.I.R. Of the subject incident but that is also on account of misleading F.I.R. That was according to the accused party against complainant. It was only after the investigation in the crime, the subject F.I.R. Was directed to be lodged and allegations against the present applicant are also there of causing fire from his rifle on the complainant party. Such crime are rampant merely ineffective firing simplicitor will furnish no ground for seeking bail. I do not see any justification to interfere with the orders of the learned trial Court. This bail application is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- JAMSHED AHMED vs THE STATE 2006 MLD 288
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 1084