SAIFULLAH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner in connection with F.I.R. No. 84 of 2003, registered under sections 392, 411, 395, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the absence of an identification parade and the delayed nature of his implication in the case. The court observed that the petitioner was not named in the initial F.I.R., and his subsequent implication through a supplementary statement recorded over three months after the incident lacked evidentiary weight. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of an identification parade, for which no explanation was provided. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry, thereby entitling him to the concession of bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not named in the F.I.R. and no identification parade is conducted to establish identity, the case against the accused warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does the failure to hold an identification parade in a case where the accused was not named in the F.I.R. entitle the accused to bail?
- What is the evidentiary value of a supplementary statement recorded three months after the occurrence?
- Is a case of further inquiry established when the prosecution fails to explain the absence of an identification parade?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.84 of 2003 registered on 9-5-2003 in Police Station Shahpur, Sargodha under sections 392, 411, 395 and 412, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Parvez Iqbal, complainant, regarding an occurrence which had taken place on 8-5-2003 at 8-30 p.m. According to the contents of the F.I.R. a person who was speaking in local dialect had hired a Hilex Wagon of the complainant and when they reached Jhawarian Road around 8-30 p.m. The aforesaid person asked them to turn towards the Zakheera and when they reached there, three unknown culprits (whose description is given in the F.I.R. And who were armed with rifle and pistols), emerged in front of the vehicle, pointed the arms at them and after making them get down from the Wagon, snatched an amount of Rs.1,200, the Hilex Wagon and the Registration Book of the vehicle from them and drove away. The complainant and the Driver proceeded towards Chak 82 Shamali and narrated the story about the occurrence before his elder brother and later the matter was reported to the Police.
3. Arguments have been heard and record persued.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. However, the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 30-8-2003 and wherein he specifically named the petitioner as one of the culprits. It has been pointed out that the recovery effected from the petitioner consisted of four seats of the Wagon, a Payedan and two iron body supports of the Wagon, of a total value of Rs.40,000.
5. Admittedly, no identification parade was held in this case and for which there is no explanation.
The statement of the co-accused can hardly be of any evidentiary value. No importance can be attached to the supplementary statement of the complainant which was recorded more than three months after the occurrence.
6. Since the identification parade was held in this case, it is clearly a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner and he is thus entitled to the concession of bail. Therefore, the bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000, with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.