MUSLIM-UR-REHMAN alias NANG and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by two applicants, Muslim-ur-Rahman alias Nang and Imdad Ali, who were booked under F.I.R. No. 114 of 2001 at Police Station Pano Akil on allegations of robbery and specific roles of committing murder by firearm. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail based on subsequent statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exonerating them and a pending compromise application before the trial court. The Sindh High Court held that the delayed statements of witnesses recorded six months after the incident do not inspire confidence, noting that other eyewitnesses and the complainant have not exonerated the accused and that specific roles of murder are assigned. The court dismissed the bail application, directing the parties to pursue the pending compromise application before the trial court. The key principle laid down is that delayed exculpatory statements of witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in the presence of implicating testimonies of other eyewitnesses and specific allegations of heinous offences, do not justify the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether delayed statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exonerating the accused constitute sufficient grounds for post-arrest bail in murder cases?
- Does a pending compromise application before the trial court automatically entitle the accused to grant of bail?
- Are accused persons assigned specific roles of firing and committing murder entitled to bail when other eyewitnesses implicate them?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. The case against the present two applicants Muslim-ur-Rahman alias Nang and Imdad Ali and others was lodged on 3-7-2001 vide F.I.R. No,114 of 2001 at Police Station Patio Akil. Besides the allegations of robbery of valuable property of the complainant, the allegation against applicant Muslim is that he killed Mst. Nihal Khatoon by firing at her from his gun while applicant Imdad Ali killed Mst. Sanam by firing from his pistol. Both the applicants were absconding and they were arrested on 5-8-2002. The bail of the applicants is being sought on the ground that both the P.Ws. Namely Saadullah and Munir Ahmed in their 164, Cr.P.C. Statements have exonerated them and a compromise application has been filed in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sukkur in which learned Sessions Judge has ordered for verification of legal heirs of the deceased from Mukhtiarkar, Pano Akil and a publication in a newspaper also.
2. The above referred 164, Cr.P.C. Statements of the two witnesses were recorded on 18-1-2002, after about six months of the incident which do not impress me to be truthful or genuine. Pressures on the prosecution witnesses is not an uncommon phenomenon. There still remain two more eye- witnesses namely Mst. Hakimzadi and the complainant. There is nothing A on record from their side. The applicants are assigned specific role of committing murders. ,Since there is a compromise application pending before the learned Sessions Judge as .Above said, it will be appropriate for the parties to get their compromise application decided by the learned trial Court which appears to be in its final stage. In view of the above this bail application is dismissed. Above are the reasons for my short order announced today in Court.