IFTIKHAR alias AATA vs STATE
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused in a case registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances surrounding his identification and arrest. The Court observed that the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR and his subsequent involvement relied on a co-accused's statement. Crucially, the Court noted a significant discrepancy: the identification parade occurred on December 24, 2002, yet the petitioner was officially arrested on January 8, 2003, suggesting he was in police custody prior to the parade, thereby casting doubt on its validity. Additionally, the Court highlighted an unexplained 20-day delay in reporting the offence and the lack of independent witnesses for the recovery. Holding that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient incriminating material and that the case required further inquiry, the Court granted bail. The key principle established is that discrepancies in the timing of arrest versus identification parades, combined with unexplained delays in reporting, create grounds for further inquiry, entitling an accused to bail.
- Does the conduct of an identification parade prior to the official arrest of an accused cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
- Can an unexplained delay in reporting an offence be a ground for granting bail?
- Is the pendency of multiple cases without conviction sufficient to deny bail to an accused?
- Does the absence of independent witnesses during recovery proceedings entitle an accused to further inquiry?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition the petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR No, 200 dated 5.12.2002 registered under Sections 395/412 PPC at Police Station Ghaziabad District Sahiwal.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was not nominated in the FIR and he has been involved due to mala fide and there is no evidence on record against the petitioner except the statement of Abdul Ghafoor co-accused on 6.11.2002; that petitioner was arrested on 8.1.2003 and since then he is behind the bars. Further submits that no Identification parade had been held in this case.
3. Conversely learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the grant of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record carefully.
The perusal of the record shows that petitioner was not nominated in the FIR but he was subsequently involved in this case due to statement made by the co-accused during the investigation in-another case. Record, further reveals that the alleged Identification Parade was conducted on 24,12.2002 wherein it has been cited that the petitioner was picked up as person involved in the instant case whereas record shows that petitioner was arrested on 8.1.2003 that means that he had been apprehended earlier and was kept by the police without showing his arrest and thereafter Identification Parade was conducted and after completing all the formalities, petitioner was officially shown to be arrested on 8.1.2003. Therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that petitioner was shown to be prosecution witness before the Identification Parade was conducted. Mere pending of 12 cases against the petitioner is of no avail to the prosecution as in none of those cases petitioner had been convicted. The offence in this case was committed on 15.10.2002 whereas same was reported on 5.11.2002 after about 20 days. The delay has not been explained by the prosecution which also casts doubt in the veracity of the prosecution version whereas petitioner was arrested on 8.1.2003 and recovery was affected on 12.1.2003 with no specific marks of identification and also no independent witness had been associated with the recovery proceedings. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 1 year without any progress in his trial. His -further detention in Jail would not advance case of the petitioner any further. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, I am of the opinion that case against the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry. Prosecution is not in possession of incriminating material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the instant case. Accordingly I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (two lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.