ABDUL GHAFOOR and another vs THE STATE
Petitioners Abdul Ghafoor and Zafar Iqbal alias Kali sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 69 dated 17-3-2004 registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ghaziabad District Sahiwal for armed robbery of a motorcycle. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given their subsequent implication through a supplementary statement, lack of recovery, and disputed identification parade. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail, observing that they were correctly identified by prosecution witnesses during a properly conducted identification parade, that challan had been submitted, that trial had commenced, and that multiple similar criminal cases were pending against them alongside a proclaimed offender brother. The court laid down the principle that accused persons facing serious allegations supported by identification parade results, pending criminal records, and an advanced stage of trial do not merit the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused implicated through a supplementary statement is entitled to post-arrest bail when identified during an identification parade?
- Does the pendency of multiple criminal cases of a similar nature affect the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether commencement of trial and serious allegations constitute sufficient grounds to refuse post-arrest bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioners Abdul Ghafoor and Zafar Iqbal alias Kali have sought their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No.69 of 2004 dated 17-3-2004 registered under section 392, P.P.C. On the complaint of Muhammad Ahmad at Police Station, Ghaziabad District, Sahiwal which was initially lodged against three unknown persons but consequently the petitioners along with Noora were implicated during supplementary statement of the complainant.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. Is that the complainant was going to Adda Sheikh Fazil on his motorcycle Yamaha 100 CC, when he crossed Maqbool. Filling Station and reached near Budh situated in the area of Chak No.164/9-C, three unknown persons with guns and pistols stopped him and forcibly snatched his motorcycle on gun-point.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are not nominated in the F.I.R., they have been implicated due to party faction on the basis of supplementary statement, they are behind the bars for more than two months, no recovery has been effected from the petitioners and the identification parade was not conducted in accordance with law, the petitioners are previously non-convict, case of the petitioners falls within the ambit of further enquiry.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail on the basis that identification parade was held in accordance with the law, wherein Muhammad Ahmad complainant and P.Ws. Rightly identified the accused persons. Further submits that challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction and case has been fixed for evidence for 10-3-2005.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Petitioners have been identified by the P.Ws. During identification parade and according to the police record a number of criminaki cases of such-like nature are pending against the petitioners and one Noora real brother of the petitioners, who is at large and has been declared proclaimed offender.
Furthermore, trial has commenced and serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. In the circumstances petitioners do not deserve for the concession of bail. This bail petition is hereby dismissed.