IBRAHIM and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 196 dated 15 September 2004, registered under sections 458, 398, and 393 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khushab. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of their identification and the completeness of the investigation. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail. The Court reasoned that the F.I.R. concealed true facts regarding the source of identification of one petitioner, the petitioners were not previously known to the complainant party, and they were never put to an identification parade to rule out false involvement. Furthermore, the investigation concerning the petitioners was complete and they were no longer required for investigative purposes. The key principle laid down is that where an F.I.R. suffers from dubious identification circumstances and lack of an identification parade, coupled with the completion of the investigation, a case for further inquiry is made out warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the F.I.R. is silent regarding the source of identity of the accused?
- Is an identification parade necessary when the accused are not previously known to the complainant and are nominated through secondary sources?
- Does the completion of investigation against the accused furnish ground for the grant of bail?
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 398, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 393, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAMUZ-ZAMAN, J.---Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.196, dated 15-9- 2004 for the offences under sections 458/398/393, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Khushab.
2. In brief the story of the prosecution as penned in the F.I.R. Is that on 14-9-2004 at about 8-30 p.m.
Three unknown persons while trespassing in the house of complainant overpowered the women folk in the house as well as Muhammad Arshad son of the complainant and directed them to hand over the cash and golden ornaments. Upon the resistance by the inmates two of the assailants managed to escape whereas the third person had a grappling and during the process the said unknown person while leaving his Shalwar and shoes at the spot also managed to escape. From the pocket of said Shalwar the identity card of one Muhammad Babar son of Muhammad Habib caste Meo was recovered. Upon search the complainant party also found one Identity Card of Safeer Ahmad son of Mir Baz caste Awan. The complainant came to know about the identity of the petitioner upon a information conveyed to him by someone and on the next day i.e. 15-9-2004 at 11-45 a.m. The F.I.R. Was lodged.
' During the investigation petitioners were arrested on 22-9-2004. The bail application of the petitioners was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Khushab vide order dated 24-2-2005. Hence this petition.
3. Heard. File perused.
4. Admittedly petitioners were not known to the complainant party but they came to known about Safeer Ahmad petitioner from the identity card which was found lying at the spot and about Ibrahim petitioner some unknown persons had informed the complainant. The record of this case is absolutely silent about the source through which complainant had come to know about the identity of Ibrahim petitioner. According to the prosecution case petitioners along with other co- accused had trespassed into the house of the complainant for the purpose of committing robbery but strange enough the accused leaving the Shalwar and shoes at the spot managed to escape.
The bare perusal of the F.I.R. Reveals that prosecution has concealed the true facts while lodging the F.I.R. After their arrest petitioners were never put to the test of identification to rule out the possibility of their false involvement from the petitioners. Investigation to their extent is complete and they are no more required for the said purpose. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioners are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.