ARSALLAH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Arsallah, in connection with F.I.R. No. 62 of 2005, registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused, who was not named in the F.I.R. and was allegedly masked during the incident, could be denied bail based on a subsequent identification parade. The court observed that the accused was one of several unidentified individuals, and the witnesses failed to provide specific details regarding how they identified a masked assailant. Furthermore, the record indicated no specific role or participation in the firing was attributed to the applicant. The court held that the identification of a masked assailant at a later stage, without corroboratory evidence, is insufficient to deny bail at this preliminary stage. Consequently, the court found the applicant's case to be one of further inquiry and admitted him to bail, establishing the principle that identification of masked suspects in the absence of corroboration warrants further investigation rather than immediate detention.
- Does the identification of a previously masked suspect in an identification parade, without corroborating evidence, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when the accused is not named in the F.I.R. and no specific role is attributed to them?
- Can the identification of an accused be treated as conclusive at the bail stage when the witnesses fail to explain the basis of their identification?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. Learned State counsel has no objection to the grant of bail by stating that MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.-- -As the simple reliance on the identification per F.I.R. No.62 of 2005 registered under parade cannot be given much weight at the sections 302, 324, 148, and 149, P.P.C. 18 stage of bail as there is neither any alleged persons, out of them 6 were unidentified, participation of the accused nor his identity took upon the complainant and his was known at the time of incident. associates and killed 3 persons namely Eidan, Masti and Nihal while injured Although 3 persons have been Saindad. Murdered and one has seriously been injured but apparently there were 6 persons Learned counsel for the applicant who had muffled their faces and were not submits that the applicant has not been known to the complainant party therefore, named in the F.I.R. And at the most he their identification at the later stage cannot could be one of the unidentified persons 'be taken conclusively in the absence of who had veil on his face and that any of the corroboratory evidence. It is not justified unidentified persons has not been assigned by the identifying witnesses as to from any role although their participation has which sign or symptom they have identified been alleged. He further submits that the the accused while according to them he had applicant was arrested after 13 days and covered his face at the time of incident. Was put to identification parade and was This deeper aspect of the evidence is to be identified but in the identification parade scrutinized after recording evidence. It has question in respect to role of the accused also come on record that the applicant has was not asked from the person identifying not participated in the firing and no the accused, He further submits that it was allegation has been attributed against him not possible for the witnesses to identify the on eve of firing on the complainant party.
2. Accused as according to the allegation he In these circumstances, the case of the had, veil on his face therefore, applicant is of further inquiry to prove his identification is very much doubted but guilt. In these circumstances, the applicant since the accused was known to the is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.200,000 complainant party and one of the relatives and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the to the accused party therefore, he has been satisfaction on trial Court. picked up by all the three witnesses. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of .
3. Zahid and others v. State 1998 PCr.LJ 45