DILDAR alias DILOO LEGHARI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Dildar alias Diloo Leghari, who was charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case registered at Police Station Johi, District Dadu. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail given the specific allegations and evidentiary gaps. The prosecution alleged that while a co-accused, Peeral Jamali, fired the fatal shot at the deceased, the applicant was also armed and fired at prosecution witnesses. However, the defense contended that the FIR was delayed by over two months and that no injuries were sustained by any witnesses due to the applicant's alleged firing. The Court observed that the FIR was indeed lodged with a significant delay and noted the absence of recovered bullet empties from the crime scene. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant's case required further inquiry and granted bail, establishing the principle that where allegations of firing are unsubstantiated by physical evidence such as bullet recoveries or injuries, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the FIR is lodged with a significant delay and no physical evidence supports the allegations of firing?
- Does the absence of injuries to witnesses and the failure to recover bullet empties from the crime scene constitute grounds for further inquiry in a murder case?
- Can bail be granted to an accused when the prosecution does not oppose the application due to lack of incriminating evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The applicant is seeking bail in Crime No,64 of 2001, registered at Police Station Johi, District Dadu, under section 302, P.P.C.
2. ' Precisely, the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Dated 2-7-2001, registered by, complainant Ghulam Rasool Jamali are that he alongwith P.W. Farooq Ali and deceased Misri were waylaid by Peeral Jamali and present applicant. Peeral Jamali made direct fire upon deceased Misri who died. The allegations against the present applicant are that he was armed with rifle and also fired upon the P.Ws.
3. ' It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. Is delayed by 2 months and 9 days. Direct firing upon the deceased has been alleged against co-accused Peeral. Nobody is alleged to have sustained injuries by firing of present applicant. Thus the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panwhac, learned counsel for the State submits that the deceased Misri was hit/by the fire-arm injury caused by co-accused Peeral Jamali. Allegedly the applicant was having rifle, but no bullet empties were recovered from the place of Wardat. He, therefore, does not oppose the grant of bail to present applicant.
5. ' Arguments advanced at the bar have been considered.
6. ' Admittedly, the F.I.R. Was lodged after the delay, of about two months. The bare perusal of the F.I.R.
7. Reveals that the allegation of direct firing upon deceased Misri is against co-accused Peeral. The allegation against the present applicant is that he was armed with rifle and fired upon the P.Ws.
8. However, admittedly, neither anybody was injured, nor empties of rifle bullets were recovered from the place of Wardat. The case of the applicant. Thus, calls for further inquiry. Accordingly, the applicant deserves to be bailed out.
9. ' For the above reasons, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) and P.R. Bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- NISAR vs THE STATE 2008 P Cr. L J 1194