DADAN alias DAD MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Dadan alias Dad Muhammad, who was charged under sections 302, 114, 147, 149, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the alleged evidentiary discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The High Court observed that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report (FIR), which was lodged with a significant ten-hour delay. Furthermore, the court noted substantial contradictions between the FIR and the statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the time, place, and number of assailants involved. Holding that the prosecution presented two conflicting versions of the incident, the court determined that the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case is riddled with significant contradictions and presents multiple versions of the occurrence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry at the bail stage.
- Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR combined with major contradictions in witness statements warrant the grant of bail?
- When does a prosecution case constitute a double version requiring further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when their name is absent from the FIR and witness statements contradict the initial prosecution account?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Through this application the applicant has sought bail in Crime No,17 of 2003 registered at Police Station Mouladad under sections 302, 114, 147, 149 and 34, P.P.C.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are that on the night of incident he alongwith two sons and guest Hazoor Bux, cousin of complainant were busy in chitchatting when at about 2-30 a.m.
3. Three persons passed near the Otaq. Chutto, son of complainant asked them as to who they were to which they did not reply. On the torch-light, three persons were seen properly. Out of them one had T.T. Pistol and two were armed with guns. Chutto went near them on which the man armed with T.T. Pistol directly fired shots at Chutto which hit him and he fell down. Then the assailants left the scene.
4. ' Apparently the bail plea advanced on behalf of the applicant was declined by the trial Court vide order dated 29-4-2003 giving rise to this application.
5. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that there is inordinate delay of about 10 hours in lodging of the F.I.R., there is no mention regarding name of applicant or even Hulia marks of accused while the fact remains :hat the applicant/accused is neighbour of complainant party and rather it was case of complainant in the F.I.R. That accused were seen properly. He further submitted that there is contradiction between statement of P.Ws. And the F.I.R. And 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. With regard to the occurrence of incident and number of accused who committed the offence. He submitted that in the F.I.R. The place of Wardat is said to be Otaq of complainant while the P.Ws. Have contradicted this fact saying that the offence had taken place near graveyard of Mureed Shah. He further argued that nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the present applicant and the post-mortem report is also in contravention to the evidence recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. He has further pointed out that the learned trial Judge has not applied his judicious mind and rejected the bail plea advanced on behalf of the applicant merely on the ground that the case of the accused falls in scope of section 35, P.P.C. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no identification parade nor the confession has been recorded by the police. In view of the above submissions, he insisted that case of prosecution has created doubt and is of double version hence calls for further enquiry.
6. In support of above submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the following case-laws:-- ' (1) 2001 PCr.LJ 1628, (2) '1976 SCM R 366, (3) 2002 PCr.LJ 564, (4) 1987 PCr.LJ 1338, (5) 2002 PCr.LJ 564, (6) 1997, PCr.LJ 1319, (7) 1987 PCr.LJ 2495, (8) 1999 SCM R 1377, (9) 2002 PCr.LJ 29, (10) 2002 M LD 1395.
7. ' I have carefully considered the arguments placed before me and assessed the material brought on record. It shows that occurrence was reported to the police after delay of 10 hours. The name of applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. But he has been brought on screen in the wake of evidence recorded in the statement of P.Ws. Under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. Which are also brought on record. Both P.Ws. Have raised major contradictions with regard to the date, place and time of incident. As per his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. The offence was committed on 16-3-2003 at 5-00 p.m. Near Ali Murad Shah alias Doori Shah Graveyard on the contrary, it is case of complainant in the F.I.R. That offence was occurred on 17-3-2003 at 2-30 a.m. Near their Otaq.
8. There are also other contradictions with regard to the number of accused and part assigned to them.
9. ' In view of above facts, it appears that the prosecution case is of two versions and calls for further enquiry. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused at this stage. Learned counsel for the applicant has been able to make out a case of bail. Accordingly, bail is granted in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R. Bond in like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- AIJAZ ALI vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 2247