SHAUKAT ALI and others vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Akram under sections 395, 397, and 312 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising out of F.I.R. No. 108 registered at Police Station Gojra, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din. The core legal question concerns whether the second petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not named in the F.I.R., no identification parade was conducted, and the alleged weapon recovery had already been completed. The court permitted the first petitioner to withdraw his petition, disposing of it accordingly. Regarding the second petitioner, the court held that since he was not named in the F.I.R., no identification parade was held, and no further recoveries were to be made, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the bail application for the second petitioner, laying down the principle that lack of nomination in the F.I.R. combined with the absence of an identification parade and completed recoveries warrants the grant of post-arrest bail on grounds of further inquiry.
- Whether an accused not specifically named in the F.I.R. and without an identification parade is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the completion of recovery from an accused person make out a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Can a post-arrest bail petition be withdrawn by a petitioner during the course of arguments?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 312, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioners namely Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Akram seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,108 of 2002 registered on 9-6-2002 in Police Station, Gojra, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din, under sections 395, 397 and 312, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by one Sikandar Hayat regarding an occurrence which had taken place on 9-6-2002 around 2-30 a.m. In the course of occurrence a dacoity had been committed at the Dera of Haji Nazar Muhammad where the complainant was also sleeping on the night of occurrence.
The number of culprits was described as 10 who were equipped with fire-arms and had forcibly taken along a gun .12. Bore belonging to Sikandar Hayat,, an amount of Rs,20,000 and 3000 Saudi Riyals, ornaments, blankets, irons etc. Tasawwar Abbas and Sikandar Hayat sons of Haji Nazar Muhammad were also injured during the course of occurrence.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. So far petitioner No,1 is concerned, the learned counsel for petitioners has stated that he does not want to press the petition to his extent and wants to withdraw the same. Accordingly the petition to the extent of petitioner No,1 is disposed of as withdra Nn.
5. So far as Muhainmad Akram petitioner No,2 is concerned, he is not specifically named in the F.I.R.
However, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that during the course of investigation, a gun .12. Bore belonging to the complainant and also a rifle .8 MM had been recovered. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said gun and rifle had been planted upon petitioner No,2 so as to falsely implicate him in this case. Anyhow, as the alleged recovery has already been effected and as nothing else is now to be recovered from the petitioner No,2 and since petitioner No,2 is not specifically named in the F.I.R. And since no identification parade had been held to determine the identity of petitioner No,2 as one of the culprits, therefore, his case is clearly of one of further inquiry and he is thus entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly, the bail application to the extent of petitioner No,2 is accepted and he admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.