Ghulam Abbas Shah vs The State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 968 of 2004 registered under sections 394 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station South Cantt, Lahore. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when implicated through statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by injured witnesses, despite not being named in the initial F.I.R. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the specific incrimination by injured witnesses having no apparent motive to falsely involve the accused established a sufficient prima facie connection to the crime, precluding the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that reliable statements of injured witnesses recorded during investigation implicating an accused are adequate to deny post-arrest bail at the preliminary stage.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is implicated by injured witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite not being named in the F.I.R.?
- Does a delay in lodging the F.I.R. automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Whether recovery of stolen property under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrants bail when other graver offences are alleged?
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 968/2004^ dated 25.12.2004 registered under sections 394/411, P.P.C, at Police Station, South Cantt., Lahore on the grounds that he had been falsely involved in this case on mere suspicion, he was never put to the test of identification parade and that during the investigation fake recovery was planted on him. If the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is even then only offence under section 411, P.P.C, is attracted which is punishable for three year's R.I. Further submits that there was a delay of sixteen hours in lodging the F.I.R.
Conversely, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application.
2. After going through the record, I have observed that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R, but on the same day injured witnesses namely Javaid Sehgul, Mst. Tareem Sehgul and Security Guard-namely Zoqa Khan while making statements under section 161, Cr.P.C, had specifically stated that it was the petitioner who alongwith driver while breaking open the door entered into the house caused injures to them and thereafter took away their belonging.
In the light of the statements of injured witnesses who have no axe to grind against the petitioner, no ground for bail is made out. Dismissed.