ALI IMRAN vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application arising from a criminal case registered in respect of an armed robbery at a shop in Karachi, where two unknown persons allegedly stole cash and mobile accessories. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure when the sole incriminating evidence consisted of recovered mobile cards that had not been subjected to a proper identification test. The Sindh High Court held that in the absence of an identification parade of the accused and proper identification of the recovered items connecting the accused to the crime, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing solvent surety. The key principle laid down is that where the primary evidence against an accused is unverified recovery requiring further connection to the crime, and no identification test is conducted, the accused makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the sole piece of evidence against him is a recovery that has not been subjected to identification?
- Does the lack of an identification parade for unidentified culprits and recovered items bring a case within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.--- (1) Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. The bail application has been filed in the case of robbery of cash, mobile cards, calling cards, batteries of mobile phone committed by two unknown persons from the shop of complainant Hardesh Kumar situated in Gulshan Hadeed, Karachi on 24-4-2005 at about 12-15 a.m. The complainant lodged the report on the same date at 2-05 a.m. The police arrested the applicant on 3-5-2005. The applicant led the police and produced some mobile cards before them. After completing the investigation the applicant was challaned in the Court. He moved bail application before the trial Court but the same was dismissed, hence the present application.
2. ' I have heard the Advocate for the applicant, State Counsel and perused the record of this case very carefully.
3. ' It is an admitted position that two unidentified persons committed the robbery. After arrest of the applicant no identification test of the applicant has been made before the Magistrate through the complainant and P.Ws. To identify the applicant to be the culprit who committed the robbery. The learned State Counsel has frankly conceded that the only piece of evidence against the applicant is of recovery of mobile cards which the applicant had produced before the police. The prosecution is required to connect these cards with the crime. As such, the same cards should have been put to identification test through the complainant and if the complainant had identified the same then the same could have been used as a piece of evidence against the applicant.
4. ' As the proper identification of the cards has not been made in this case, at this stage and there is no other evidence connecting the applicant with the commission of this crime therefore, his case falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. As such, he is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. ' In the circumstances of the case bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs,75,000 on furnishing solvent surety with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The application is allowed.