Shafi-Ur-Rehman vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 600/03, registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of robbery at gunpoint. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not named in the FIR, no looted money was recovered from him, and the only recovery was a joint recovery of a mobile phone. The Court held that despite the petitioner not being named in the FIR and the legal weakness of joint recoveries, the petitioner had been identified during an identification parade. Furthermore, the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court disallowed the bail application. However, noting the delay in proceedings, the Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within three months, granting the petitioner liberty to re-approach the Court if the trial remains incomplete due to no fault of his own.
- Does a joint recovery of stolen property carry evidentiary weight in bail proceedings?
- Can bail be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR but was identified during an identification parade?
- Is an accused entitled to bail solely because the offence falls within the non-prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.-- The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this bail application after arrest in FIR No. 600/03, dated 23.10.2003, under section 392, PPC at P.S. Lorry Adda, Lahore.
2. Briefly, according to the FIR, the complainant stated that on 23.10.2003 while he was sitting in his office with his Accountant and business partner, three unknown boys entered into his office and on gun point they deprived him and others of cash.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has been subsequently involved in this case. He submits that no recovery of-money has been effected from him, however, a joint recovery has been effected from the petitioner and co- accused of a mobile phone. He submits that he has been behind the bars since his arrest i.e. 30.5.2004.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner' was arrested in another case of theft of a Suzuki car in FIR No. 202/04 registered at P.S. Green Town, Lahore. During the course of investigation, he disclosed his involvement in the present case and thus hi$ arrest was entered in the present case on 30.5.2004. After the same disclosure the complainant identified him.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and State. The FIR is silent about the names of the petitioner and other co-accused. He was identified during the. Course of investigation of FIR No. 202/04. P.S. Green Town and the identification parade held on 26.6.2004. No amount of looted money has been recovered from the petitioner. A' mobile phone has been recovered which is shown as a joint recovery against the petitioner and his co-accused. Legally, joint recovery does not attached any credence, however, I have gone through the record of identification which has been conducted as required under the law. The challan in this case has already been submitted on 31.12.2004. The offence against the petitioner is covered by the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as noted above and the prevalent situation, this bail application is disallowed: However, the concerned Trial Court is directed to complete the trial of this case within three months, as one year has already passed since the submission of phallan. If the trial is not completed in the above period and there is no lapse on part of the. Petitioner, the petitioner may file another bail application before this Court.