2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)
MUHAMMAD SALMAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALMAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN) (MUHAMMAD SALMAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497 (2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 395
Accused was neither nominated in the FIR nor complainant had given his description
Only general allegations were on record against the accused
No independent witness of the locality had been cited to act as mashir of recovery of case property
No identification parade had been held
Non-holding of identification parade after the arrest of accused had brought the case within the purview of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Co-accused having identical role had already been granted bail by the Trial Court
Present accused was entitled to the same treatment on the rule of consistency
Case of the accused required further probe to the effect whether alleged recovery had been affected from the possession of accused or otherwise
Accused was no more required for investigation
Nothing was on record with regard to previous involvement of accused in such like cases
Bail was granted subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Two lac) in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. [Paras. 6, 7 and 8 of the judgment] Syed Muatasim Wasit alias Momi v. The State and another 2010 PCr.LJ 477; Liaqat Ali v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 413; Madiha Jabeen v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 82 and Nasir Khokhan v. The State 2006 YLR 3042 ref. Muhammad Suleman v. Riasat Ali and another 2002 SCMR 1304 rel. Mrs. Razia Ali Zaman Khan Patoli for Applicant. Iram Ahmed, D.D.P.P. for the State. ORDER ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.
Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his release on bail in Crime No.251/2014 registered under section 395, P.P.C. at Police Station Naseem Nagar @ Qasimababad, Hyderabad, the applicant Muhammad Salman son of Zulfiqar Ali now seeks his release on bail in the aforementioned crime through instant bail application.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this bail application are that on 13.12.2014 at 1850 hours, complainant was present at his home along with his nephews Iftikhar Ali, Israr Ali and Akbar Ali when the bell of his house ranged up; his nephew Akbar Ali went to the door and enquired who are you, the persons replied him to come for serving Niaz, when his nephew opened the door, three unknown persons entered in the house, out of them one had dagger in his hand and two had pistols in their hands who closed the complainant party in a room on gun point and robbed wear articles and told that their companions are outside and accused started searching the house and robbed the property, detail of which is mentioned in the FIR. Thereafter, accused persons threatened the complainant party to remain mum and ran away on their motorcycles.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case in hand; that co-accused Muneeb Ahmed alias Faraz has been granted bail by the trial Court; FIR is blind whereas no name of the applicant/accused appears in the FIR nor any description of the applicant/accused has been given in the FIR by complainant party; applicant is minor and is confined in Youthful Offender Industry School and is no more required for further investigation by the prosecution; the arrest and recovery of applicant/accused is shown to have been effected on 12.01.2015 after about one month of the alleged incident which needs thorough probe. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases reported as Muhammad Suleman v. Riasat Ail and another (2002 SCMR 1304), Syed Muatasim Wasit alias Momi v. The State and another (2010 PCr.LJ 477), Liaqat Ali v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 413), Madiha Jabeen v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 82) and Nasir Khokhan v. The State (2006 YLR 3042).
4. Learned D.D.P.P. has vehemently opposed this bail application and contended that recovery of robbed articles was effected from the possession of applicant in presence of mashirs namely Ikhtiar Ali and Imtiaz Ali.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.
6. It is an admitted fact that neither the name of applicant transpires in the FIR nor the complainant party had given any description of the applicant and there are general allegations against the applicant. FIR has been lodged by complainant on 13.12.2014 whereas the police papers show that the present applicant/accused was arrested and recovery was allegedly made from him on 12.01.2015 after a delay of about month, in presence of mashir Ikhtiar Ali son of Allah Rakhi who is brother of complainant and another mashir Imtiaz Ali who is son of complainant, therefore, their evidence need to be deeply scrutinized at the time of trial. No independent witness of the locality has been cited to act as mashir. No reason whatsoever has been assigned why the police did not make efforts to make any private and independent mashir of the locality to witness the arrest and recovery of applicant. No identification parade has been held. It is settled law that non-holding of identification parade after arrest of the accused persons has brought this case within the purview of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. as held in the case of Muhammad Sulleman v. Riasat Ali and another reported in 2002 SCMR 1304. Moreover, co-accused Muneeb having identical role to that of applicant has already been granted bail by the trial Court therefore, on the rule of consistency also, the present applicant/accused is entitled to the same treatment.
7. Since the bail to present applicant/accused has been rejected by the trial Court mainly on the ground that robbed articles have been recovered from his possession in presence of mashirs, but as observed above, both mashirs are the brother and son of the complainant, therefore, on this ground also the case of applicant requires further probe to the affect that whether the alleged recovery has been effected from the possession of applicant in a fashion as alleged by the prosecution or otherwise. Admittedly, challan has been submitted and the applicant/accused is no more required for investigation. There is nothing on record to show that previously the present applicant/ accused has remained indulged in such like cases.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the present applicant has succeeded to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, he is granted bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party at the time of trial. ZC/M-87/Sindh Bail granted.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.
Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his release on bail in Crime No.251/2014 registered under section 395, P.P.C. at Police Station Naseem Nagar @ Qasimababad, Hyderabad, the applicant Muhammad Salman son of Zulfiqar Ali now seeks his release on bail in the aforementioned crime through instant bail application.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this bail application are that on 13.12.2014 at 1850 hours, complainant was present at his home along with his nephews Iftikhar Ali, Israr Ali and Akbar Ali when the bell of his house ranged up; his nephew Akbar Ali went to the door and enquired who are you, the persons replied him to come for serving Niaz, when his nephew opened the door, three unknown persons entered in the house, out of them one had dagger in his hand and two had pistols in their hands who closed the complainant party in a room on gun point and robbed wear articles and told that their companions are outside and accused started searching the house and robbed the property, detail of which is mentioned in the FIR. Thereafter, accused persons threatened the complainant party to remain mum and ran away on their motorcycles.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case in hand; that co-accused Muneeb Ahmed alias Faraz has been granted bail by the trial Court; FIR is blind whereas no name of the applicant/accused appears in the FIR nor any description of the applicant/accused has been given in the FIR by complainant party; applicant is minor and is confined in Youthful Offender Industry School and is no more required for further investigation by the prosecution; the arrest and recovery of applicant/accused is shown to have been effected on 12.01.2015 after about one month of the alleged incident which needs thorough probe. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases reported as Muhammad Suleman v. Riasat Ail and another (2002 SCMR 1304), Syed Muatasim Wasit alias Momi v. The State and another (2010 PCr.LJ 477), Liaqat Ali v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 413), Madiha Jabeen v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 82) and Nasir Khokhan v. The State (2006 YLR 3042).
4. Learned D.D.P.P. has vehemently opposed this bail application and contended that recovery of robbed articles was effected from the possession of applicant in presence of mashirs namely Ikhtiar Ali and Imtiaz Ali.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.
6. It is an admitted fact that neither the name of applicant transpires in the FIR nor the complainant party had given any description of the applicant and there are general allegations against the applicant. FIR has been lodged by complainant on 13.12.2014 whereas the police papers show that the present applicant/accused was arrested and recovery was allegedly made from him on 12.01.2015 after a delay of about month, in presence of mashir Ikhtiar Ali son of Allah Rakhi who is brother of complainant and another mashir Imtiaz Ali who is son of complainant, therefore, their evidence need to be deeply scrutinized at the time of trial. No independent witness of the locality has been cited to act as mashir. No reason whatsoever has been assigned why the police did not make efforts to make any private and independent mashir of the locality to witness the arrest and recovery of applicant. No identification parade has been held. It is settled law that non-holding of identification parade after arrest of the accused persons has brought this case within the purview of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. as held in the case of Muhammad Sulleman v. Riasat Ali and another reported in 2002 SCMR 1304. Moreover, co-accused Muneeb having identical role to that of applicant has already been granted bail by the trial Court therefore, on the rule of consistency also, the present applicant/accused is entitled to the same treatment.
7. Since the bail to present applicant/accused has been rejected by the trial Court mainly on the ground that robbed articles have been recovered from his possession in presence of mashirs, but as observed above, both mashirs are the brother and son of the complainant, therefore, on this ground also the case of applicant requires further probe to the affect that whether the alleged recovery has been effected from the possession of applicant in a fashion as alleged by the prosecution or otherwise. Admittedly, challan has been submitted and the applicant/accused is no more required for investigation. There is nothing on record to show that previously the present applicant/ accused has remained indulged in such like cases.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the present applicant has succeeded to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, he is granted bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party at the time of trial. ZC/M-87/Sindh Bail granted.