TAHIR MANZOOR vs STATE and another
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from case FIR No. 401 of 2003 registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Yousufwala, District Sahiwal. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when not nominated in the FIR, no recovery was effected from him, and serious questions are raised regarding the integrity and delay of the identification parade. The Lahore High Court held that where the petitioner was not named in the FIR, no recovery was made, an objection regarding the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the identification parade was raised at the outset, and an unexplained delay of five days occurred before conducting the identification parade, a case for further inquiry is made out. The Court laid down the principle that such suspicious circumstances surrounding identification and lack of corroborative recovery attract the benefit of doubt at the bail stage, entitling the accused to the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an unnominated accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the sole evidence against him is an identification parade that is subject to serious objections regarding prior show-up?
- Does an unexplained delay in conducting the identification parade after the arrest of the accused create grounds for further inquiry warranting bail?
- Whether the absence of any recovery from the accused, coupled with doubtful identification evidence, attracts the benefit of doubt at the bail stage?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
Tahir Manzoor, the petitioner arrested on 25.11.2003 in case FIR No, 401 of 2003 lodged with Police Station, Yousufwala District Sahiwal on the application of one Ch. Muhammad Ali on 18.11.2002 under Sections 392/411 PPC, has filed this bail after arrest petition after he could not get the bail concession from the learned Magistrate Ist Class Sahiwal on 17.3.2004 and on 30.3.2004 from learned Addl. Sessions Judge Sahiwal. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR and was arrested near his residence in Chak No, 5/82 of Thal Development Authority and no recovery was effected from him., As regards the identification parade, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had objected before the conduct of proceedings of identification parade that he was shown to the informant/complainant in the Police Station. The learned counsel has also submitted that five days earlier to the identification parade, the petitioner was arrested but was kept in the police station continuously so as to get his identification known to the informant. The learned counsel. appearing on behalf of State has opposed the grant of bail with this allegation that the petitioner has been identified by Muhammad Shafi, Driver of the Tractor in the identification parade. So, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail.
2. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel, I have found that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR and the sole evidence, which can possibly be adduced against the petitioner is that of the identification parade, which was objected by the petitioner at the time of its commencement in clear words that he was shown in the Police Station to the informant. Prima facie, these circumstances and evidence connecting the accused with the commission of crime has created a doubtful atmosphere requiring its full fledged probe and examination at the final trial stage. There is yet another aspect of the case, the petitioner who was arrested five days earlier to the identification parade, no plausible reason has been given out by the prosecution as to- why they had kept five days after the arrest of the petitioner and had not got conducted earlier the accused's identification parade. No recovery having been made from the petitioner and no other evidence having been collected as against the petitioner. All these circumstances have attracted the application of benefit of doubt for the purpose of bail to be given at this bail stags, to the petitioner. As the petitioner's case has fallen within the further inquiry realm, therefore, the petitioner is granted bail after arrest in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.