ABDUL RAZZAK SHAH alias PAPO SHAH Versus THE STATE
This bail application arose from a criminal case where the applicant was charged under Sections 382, 342, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not named in the First Information Report (FIR), the perpetrators were described as having muffled faces, no identification parade was conducted, and his name was only introduced later through an improved statement by the complainant. The Sindh High Court held that the subsequent implication of the applicant by the complainant in a further statement, without an identification parade and in the absence of any recovery of the stolen vehicle from his possession, made the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not named in the FIR, the culprits had muffled faces, no identification parade is held, and the prosecution relies on a belated improved statement of the complainant, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether a case for further inquiry is made out for bail purposes when the accused is not named in the FIR and the culprits are described as having muffled faces without any subsequent identification parade?
- Can a belated further statement of the complainant implicating an accused, prima facie recorded at the instance of the police, be sufficient to deny bail in the absence of corroborative evidence?
- Does the lack of recovery of the stolen property from the possession of the accused support the grant of post-arrest bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 399, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 402, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance
ORDER
' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.--- Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. The applicant is facing trial under sections 382, 342 and 34, P.P.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 has been 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 names 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 applicant in his further statement. No identification parade has been held. The accused has no criminal background. The vehicle has not been recovered from the accused. 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.