ALI GUL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Ali Gul, who was detained in connection with an offence under sections 392 and 398 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether, given the absence of an identification parade and the lack of physical description of the culprits in the F.I.R., the applicant’s case warranted the grant of bail pending trial. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to conduct an identification parade despite the F.I.R. lacking specific descriptions of the perpetrators. Furthermore, the Court noted inconsistencies regarding the recovery of the stolen property and the circumstances of the applicant's arrest. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution's case required further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court admitted the applicant to bail, establishing the principle that where the identity of the accused is not established through a proper identification parade in the absence of prior descriptions, the case against the accused becomes one of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the failure to hold an identification parade when the F.I.R. lacks a description of the culprits entitle an accused to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a case considered to be one of 'further inquiry' when the prosecution relies on the recovery of items without a proper identification process?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution's evidence regarding the identification of the accused is contested and requires trial scrutiny?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 398, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.--- The applicant Ali Gul son of Abdul Ghaffar detained in Crime No,89 of 2005 under sections 392/398, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Al-Falah has applied for bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. The applicant has approached the Sessions Judge, Karachi East, his bail plea was rejected. Accordingly, he has resorted to file the present bail application.
2. ' Precisely the facts leading to the prosecution case are that the complainant Syed Muhammad Kamran lodged report that on 22-5-2005 he had visited his friend's shop at Gulistan-e-Rafia where his friend Muhammad Arif also arrived at 2-15 p.m., suddenly the two culprits aged about 27/28 years entered the shop, offered mobile card, the culprits on show of force started searching the complainant's friend's shop, they took four mobile phones, 30 cards and cash worth Rs,10,350 and had also snatched mobile Nokia of the complainant's friend and Motorcycle No,KAV-2548, make Honda from the complainant. The culprits then ran away on motorcycle without number plate. The matter was reported to police.
3. ' The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that the applicant after the arrest was not put to identification parade, the description of the complainant has not been mentioned in the F.I.R., the recovery of the motorcycle was effected from the possession of the co-accused Abdul Sattar, the memo. Of recovery and arrest of the appellant shows that from his possession the Registration Book of the motorcycle was secured on 24-5-2005, therefore, the case of the applicant falls within the ambit of further enquiry as contemplated by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. ' Mr. Agha Zafir Ali, learned A.A.-G. For the State, has opposed the bail application on the premises that soon after the incident the complainant had disclosed the story of the incident to the police, the applicant and the co-accused were chased and the present accused Ali Gul was arrested. It is further contended that the recovery of the motorcycle was effected from the possession of the applicant.
5. I have perused the record of the prosecution case. The testimony of the culprits who had entered into the shop for the purpose of committing offence is not described in the F.I.R., therefore, it was necessary for the prosecution to put the applicant and co-accused after the arrest for the purpose of identification parade through the complainant and the other eye-witnesses. It is explicitly clear from the memo. Of arrest of the applicant; that he was arrested after two days of the alleged incident and from his personal search the Registration Book of the robbed motorcycle was secured along with other articles. It is also explicitly clear that the applicant was pointed out by co-accused Farhan but in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. He had not suggested so. Thus, the case of the prosecution requires consideration within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In the above facts and circumstances, the applicant Ali Gul is admitted on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ALI GHULAM and another vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 1062