Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Ali Sain Dino MetloAamir Mansoob Qureshi,Sohail Jabbar
2007 Y L R 2223
2007 Y L R 2223
[Karachi]
Before Ali Sain Dino Metlo, J
MUHAMMAD IMRAN and another---Applicants
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.843 of 2006, decided on 15th May, 2007.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused were arrested after about six years, of alleged incident and a person who was introduced as eye-witness appeared for the first time and claimed to have witnessed the incident---Said person was shown to have identified accused in identification parade, but the fact was that accused were not put to identification of complainant---Accused had remained in custody for over three and half years without any substantial progress in their trial---Facts that accused were not put to the identification of the complainant and eye-witness appeared before the police first time after six years of the incident, coupled with complainant's specific statement in the F.I.R. that no other person was present there at the time of incident, militated against reasonableness of the grounds put forward by the prosecution for believing accused guilty of offence---Matter required further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr. P. C. and accused were entitled to bail---Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Aamir Mansoob Qureshi for Applicants.
Sohail Jabbar for the State.
ORDER
ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.--Heard Messrs Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, Advocate for the applicants and Sohail Jabbar, State Counsel. The latter has opposed bail.
2. According to the prosecution, on 3-6-1996, at 2210 hours, near Pakistan Medicos Health Centre, within jurisdiction of police station Mominabad, Karachi, two young men killed Dr. Muhammad Haider alias Babar by making fires upon him, while he and his sister's son complainant Naveed Raza, after closing their clinic situated in Sadaf Colony, Orangi Town, Karachi, were in a car on their way back to home situated in North Nazimabad. The deceased was driving the car and the complainant was sitting by his side on the front seat. The assassins, riding a motorcycle, overtook them and the man having a pistol sitting behind the driver of the motorcycle made four or five fires upon the deceased. The deceased was taken to hospital where he died at about 3-00 a.m. The matter was reported to police on 4-6-1996 at 1700 hours. The first information report (F.I.R.) specifically mentioned that no other person was present there at the time of incident.
3. On 14-3-2006 i.e. after about six years of the incident, the applicants were arrested and on 18-3-2002 one Mehmood Khan appeared before police for the first time and claimed that he had also witnessed the incident. He is shown to have identified the applicants in an identification parade held before a Magistrate on 21-3-2002. However, strangely enough, they were not put to the identification of the complainant. They have remained in custody for over three and half years without any substantial progress in their trial. The trial Court has refused them bail only on the ground that they were identified by Mehmood Khan introduced as an eye-witness for the first time after six years.
4. The facts that the applicants were not put to the identification of the complainant and the so-called eye-witness Mehmood Khan appeared before police for the first time after six years of the incident, coupled with complainant's specific statement in the F.I.R. that no other person was present there at the time of incident, militate against reasonableness of the grounds put forward by the prosecution for believing the applicants guilty of the offence. It requires only further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898, and the applicants are entitled to bail. It was for these reasons, recorded now, that the applicants, by a short order passed on 25-9-2006, were directed to be released on bail each on giving one surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 and personal bond in the like amount to the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-75/K Bail granted.