ABDUL RAZAK alias PAPO SHAH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for post-arrest bail brought by the applicant facing trial under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail due to allegations of false implication, lack of identification, and procedural discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The High Court observed that the FIR initially involved four unidentified accused with muffled faces and no identification parade was ever conducted. The complainant subsequently implicated the applicant through an improved further statement recorded after significant delay. Furthermore, no vehicle or empties were recovered from the applicant, and only a small sum of money and a knife were alleged to have been recovered upon his arrest. Holding that the prosecution's case suffered from prima facie impropities and fell within the scope of further inquiry, the High Court granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing requisite surety bonds.
- Does an uncorroborated improvement in a complainant's further statement naming a previously unidentified accused warrant post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Whether the failure to hold an identification parade for accused persons initially reported to have muffled faces creates a case of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 399, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 402, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.-Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. The applicant is facing trial in F.I.R. Grime No. 130 of 2004 at Police Station A-Section, Sukkur under sections 399, 353, 324, 402, 412, 148, 149, P.P.C. And 13-D Arms Ordinance on 16-12-2004.
' The back ground of the case is that the applicant is also facing trial under sections 382, 342 and 34, PrP.C. In Crime No. 127 of 2004, Police Station Abad. The F.I.R., does not disclose the name of the applicant. In the F.I.R., it has been stated that the accused who had taken away the vehicle of the complainant were four in number with muffled faces. No identification parade was held by the police.
' Learned counsel -for the applicant states that the applicant and the other residents of village Qasim were arrested by police in the night of 13-12-2004 to 14-12-2004 and protest was lodged by the residents of the village which was given wide coverage in the media. He submits that the police in order to justify arrest of the applicant and others had shown false encounter by registering false F.I.R. No. 130 of 2004 at Police Station A-Section Sukkur under sections 399, 353, 324, 402, 412, 148 and 149, P.P.C. And 13-D Arms Ordinance on 16-12-2004. The applicant was shown to have been arrested on 16-12-2004 in the said crime as well as in Crime No. 127 of 2004. The applicant is reported to be a clerk in the Irrigation Department and recovery of knife and Rs.50 has been shown to have effected at the time of his arrest. The vehicle recovered by the police was parked at Kinara Hotel, which is a public place. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely implicated and there was no material collected by the police to connect the applicant either in Crime No. 126 of 2004 or in Crime No. 130 of 2004.
' Learned State Counsel submits that .No identification parade was held and after registration of the F.I.R. No. 130 of 2004 on 23-12-2004 the police has recorded further statement of the complainant Mir Aslam Pathan in which he has disclosed the name of five persons which included the name of the present applicant. The learned counsel for State further submits that even the eye-witnesses in F.I.R. No. 127 of 2004 Ghulam Murtaza and Abdul Hakeem four accused who had stolen away the vehicle were muffled faces.
It appears that the complainant prima facie at the instance of the police has improved the case by implicating the applicant. No identification parade has been held. The accused has no criminal back ground. The vehicle has not been recovered from the accused . No empties were recovered by the police. Recovery of knife and Rs.70 were effected from the person of the applicant.
' All these facts make the case of further enquiry. In these circumstances the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.