NISAR vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.234 of 2001 registered under sections 380, 411, and 458 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Garh, District Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the delayed supplementary statement, lack of identification parade, questionable recoveries, and unverified previous criminal record. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's involvement based on a supplementary statement recorded after two years, the absence of an identification parade, the doubtful nature of the recovered currency and registration book, and the unverified status of another pending case brought the matter within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing appropriate security bonds.
- Whether the involvement of an accused on the basis of a belated supplementary statement recorded after two years warrants the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the failure to conduct an identification parade of an un-named accused entitle him to further inquiry?
- Whether involvement in another criminal case, the fate of which is unknown, is a ground to refuse bail when the case otherwise falls within the ambit of further inquiry?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.234 of 2001, dated 1-10-2001 under sections 380/411/458, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Garh, District Faisalabad.
2. Heard. File perused.
Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. But he was involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant which was recorded on 8-4-2003 i.e. After two years of the occurrence. After his arrest, petitioner was never put to the test of identification parade to rule out the possibility of his false involvement. Allegedly during the investigation, petitioner led to the recovery of Rs.4,400 (looted money) alongwith a registration book. The currency notes recovered at the instance of petitioner are of ordinary in nature and at this stage, it is difficult to say that these notes were the same which were looted during the occurrence. As regards the recovery of registration book from the petitioner, it not understandable as to why petitioner would keep the same with him for almost two years. Learned Counsel for the State while opposing the bail application also argued that petitioner is involved in other case i.e. F.I.R. No.21 of 1997, dated 21-1- 1997 registered at Police Station, Garh, District Faisalabad. The Police Officer present in Court is not in a position to say about the fate of this case. Even otherwise involvement of a person in other case is no ground to refuse him the concession of bail when his case falls within the ambit of Further inquiry. The above said circumstances are sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the fold of further inquiry entitling the concession of bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.