Amir Ali vs The State
This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through which the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when he was not named in the initial first information report, but was subsequently identified during an identification parade and connected to the offense through prosecution evidence, notwithstanding his prior involvement in another criminal case. The court held that the petition lacked merit because sufficient prima facie evidence connected the petitioner to the offense, the case fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the evidentiary value of the identification parade could not be deeply scrutinized at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that the evaluation of the evidentiary value of an identification parade and deeper appreciation of evidence are not permissible at the pre-trial bail stage, and that an accused whose case is distinguishable from a co-accused granted bail on different facts cannot claim parity.
- Whether the evidentiary value of an identification parade can be deeply considered at the bail stage?
- Can an accused claim the benefit of bail on the rule of consistency when his case is distinguishable from a co-accused?
- Does non-naming of an accused in the First Information Report automatically make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J. Through this application under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Amir Ali (petitioner)seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 28-2005, dated 22.1.2005, registered under Sections 302/34, PPC at Police Station, Sadar, Wazirabad, District Gujranwala on the statement of Shafqat Rasool, the complainant.
2. The brief facts as alleged in the F.I.R, are that on 22.5.2005 at about 11.30 a.m. An unknown person came at Adda Kot Khizri, a Bus Stop, while armed with pistol and fired on Amjad Rasool, brother of the complainant, who was also standing there. Amjad Rasool succumbed to the injuries at the spot and the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R, and the petitioner has been involved in the present case subsequently on the disclosure of Sajjad Ahmad (co- accused), who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2005 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 8822-B/2005 wherein it was observed that the witnesses could have not identified the accused, who had actively participated in the occurrence in spite of the fact that he is the resident of the same locality; that the identification parade was conducted with the delay of 7 days, which does not contain any description of the accused, who participated the occurrence and the F.I.R, is also devoid of such facts. Allegedly, the complainant has not identified the petitioner and other eyewitnesses also did not support the prosecution story. The identification parade without any basis is not strong piece of evidence; that during the police remand, nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; hence the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the petitioner was arrested in F.I.R. 754-2004 registered on 27.12.2094 at Police Station, Ferozwala, District Sheikhupura under Section 302, PPC and then he was shifted to jail and fixed for proceedings of identification parade, which was not held because the petitioner was identified by two eye-witnesses; that he is involved in murder case previously; that the petitioner is desperate, hardened and criminal bent of mind and offence under Section 302, PPC prima facie is made out against him and case falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The complainant had no enmity or grudge with the petitioner previously to falsely implicate him in the present case; that the petitioner is the resident of territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Ferozwala; whereas occurrence had taken place at Wazirabad and the witnesses did not know whereabouts of the petitioner, who had correctly identified him.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6, Though the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., but the complainant has stated that he and eyewitnesses can identify the accused as who had seen him while making firing upon the deceased, it is also on record that the petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence in the presence of the complainant and he was arrested. The identification parade was conducted, but except the complainant, other eye-witnesses had identified the petitioner as one of the accused, which shows that the petitioner was not previously shown to the eye-witnesses. Otherwise, the complainant would have also identified the petitioner in jail. As fall as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner about the evidentiary value of identification parade is concerned, deeper merits cannot be considered at this stage. The prosecution has collected sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence and prima facie, case falls within the prohibitory clause Of Section 497, Cr.P.C. I find that case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of Sajjad Ahmad co-accused, who was the resident of place of occurrence and it was "also observed by this Court while granting bail to him that eyewitnesses had not seen him at the place of occurrence, otherwise his name could have been mentioned in the F.I.R.
The petitioner is not resident of the same locality. The petitioner was arrested in a murder case previously as well in which he was sent to jail, In the above circumstances, it is not a fit case for the grant of bail.
Consequently, this bail petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.