SARFRAZ alias PUNNU N vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 392 and 411-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khairpur Tamianwali, District Bahawalpur, concerning the forcible snatching of a motorcycle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including delay in lodging the F.I.R., lack of recovery, absence of an identification parade, and statutory delay in the commencement of the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under the law. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing appropriate surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is implicated on suspicion with delayed reporting, unheld identification parades, and no recovery, coupled with the unlikelihood of a speedy trial, a case for further inquiry is made out warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay?
- Does the absence of recovery of the robbed property from the accused justify the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no identification parade has been conducted and involvement is based on mere suspicion?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks - post -arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,480 of 2002, dated 23-9- 2002 under sections 392/ 411-A, P.P.C. At Police Station, Khairpur Tamianwali District Bahawalpur.
2. As per F.I.R., three persons out of whom two were armed with pistols, forcibly snatched the motorcycle of the complainant on 20-9-2002. Later on, it had come to the knowledge of the complainant that said three persons were Allah Rakha alias Rakha, Sadiq Ali and the present petitioner.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It could not be denied that the F.I.R., was lodged with a delay of three days; that the Motorcycle- in-question was not recovered from the petitioner; that no Identification Parade was held and the petitioner was involved simply on the basis of suspicion (Ref. Khizar Abbas and another v. State KLR 2001 Criminal cases 334, Ghulam Dastagir v. State 2001 PCr.LJ 235 and Muhammad Suleman v.
Riasat Ali and another 2002 SCMR 1304); that the petitioner is behind the bars since 29-11-2002 and there is no likelihood of commencement of the trial in the near future.
5. All the above uncontroverted factors .Persuade me to allow this petition. Resultantly, the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail Bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.