Muhammad Khalid vs The State
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 75 registered at Police Station Jhang Bazar, Faisalabad, involving allegations under sections 392, 114, 411, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Court observed that the occurrence took place after dark, the FIR was lodged with a seven-day delay, and no test identification parade was conducted to incriminate the petitioner. Furthermore, the recovered items were not identified as stolen property, and no evidence linked the recovered weapon to the alleged offences. Noting that co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail and that the petitioner had no prior criminal record, the Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's evidence is tenuous and co-accused have been granted relief, the petitioner's continued incarceration serves no beneficial purpose.
- Does the absence of a test identification parade in a case involving unidentified culprits constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the grant of bail to co-accused with similar roles a relevant factor for the court when considering a bail petition for another accused?
- Does the failure to identify recovered items as stolen property weaken the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.- Through this petition Muhammad Khalid petitioner has sought post- arrest bail in case FIR No.75 registered at Police Station Jhang Bazar, Faisalabad on 03.03.2004 for offences under section 392/114, PPC. During the investigation sections 411 and 412, PPC had statedly been added to the FIR.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the occurrence in this case had taken place after dark and the FIR in respect of the same had been lodged with a delay of seven days. According to the FIR the culprits perpetrating the alleged offences had remained unidentified at the spot and their names had been divulged before the complainant by one Muhammad Siddique co-accused who had informed the complainant that the petitioner was also one of the persons who had committed the alleged offences, lt is not disputed that no test identification parade has been held in this case so as to positively incriminate the petitioner.. During the investigation a C.D. Deck and a pistol had allegedly been recovered from the petitioner's possession. However, the recovered C.D. Deck had never been identified by the complainant or the eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR as part of the stolen property and no memorandum of identification of the recovered C.D. Deck is available on the record of investigation. There is noting available on the record to connect the pistol allegedly recovered from the petitioner's possession with the offences in issue, lt may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has been implicated in this case through a disclosure allegedly made by Muhammad Siddique co-accused but the said Muhammad Siddique co-accused has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.
Another co-accused of the petitioner namely Iftikhar whose role in the main occurrence was somewhat similar to that of the present petitioner has also been admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned Area Magistrate. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in Jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. The leamed counsel for the State and the police officer present with the record have categorically stated that the petitioner has no credentials or antecedents of a dacoit or a robber to his discredit as no other case of similar nature stands registered against him at the relevant Police Station.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.