IRSALLAH vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court in the case of Irsallah v. The State (2007 MLD 480), concerning F.I.R. No. 62 of 2005 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving multiple murders and injuries. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was an unidentified, masked accused initially not named in the F.I.R. and later identified in an identification parade without specific role attribution, was entitled to post-arrest bail. The court held that in the absence of corroboratory evidence and specific role attribution during the identification parade of a masked accused, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that identification of a previously masked and unnamed accused without clear corroboration or assigned role at the bail stage warrants further inquiry.
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the F.I.R. make out a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can the identification of a masked accused at an identification parade without specific role attribution be considered conclusive at the bail stage?
- Whether an accused not assigned any active role in the commission of the crime is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- 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. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---As per F.I.R. No,62 of 2005 registered under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C. 18 persons, out of them 6 were unidentified, took upon the complainant and hisassociates and killed 3 persons namely Eidan, Masti and Nihal while injuring Saindad.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not been named in the F.I.R. And at the most he could be one of the unidentified persons who had veiled on his face and that any of the unidentified persons has not been assigned any role although their participation has been alleged. He further submits that the applicant was arrested after 13 days and was put to identification parade and was identified but in the identification parade question in respect to role of the accused was not asked from the person identifying the accused. He further submits that it was not possible for the witnesses to identify the accused as according to the allegation he had veiled on his face therefore, identification is very much doubted but since the accused was known to the complainant party and one of the relatives to the accused party therefore, he has been picked up by all the three witnesses. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Zahid and others v. State, 1998, PCr.LJ 45 to the point that when no role was assigned to the accused by the witness identifying him then the case fall within thecategory of further inquiry. He has also relied upon the case of Abdul Karim alias Baboo and another v. The State 2006 SCM R 813 on the point that absences of the name of the accused in the F.I.R. Makes the case of further inquiry.
3. ' Learned State counsel has no objection to the grant of bail by stating that the simple reliance on the identification parade cannot be given much weight at the stage of bail as there is neither any alleged participation of the accused nor his identity was known at the time of incident.
4. ' Although 3 persons have been murdered and one has seriously been injured but apparently there were 6 persons who had muffled their faces and were not known to the complainant party therefore, their identification at the later stage cannot be taken conclusively in the absence of corroboratoryevidence. It is not justified by the identifying witnesses as to from which sign or symptom they have identified the accused while according to them he had covered his face at the time of incident. This deeper aspect of the evidence is to be scrutinized after recording evidence. It has also come on record that the applicant has not participated in the firing and no allegation has been attributed against him on eve of firing on the complainant party. In these circumstances, the case of the applicant is of further inquiry to prove his guilt. In these circumstances, the applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.