MUHAMMAD KHALID vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Muhammad Khalid seeking bail in a case registered under sections 392 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Preedy. The core legal question involves whether the applicant is entitled to bail given that he was not nominated in the F.I.R., no identification parade was held, and no independent witnesses were cited, notwithstanding the recovery of the mobile phone. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant was not arrested at the scene, no independent witness was cited, and no identification parade was conducted despite the complainant's claim to identify the culprit, the case fell within the purview of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the application was allowed and the applicant was admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety.
- Is an unnominated accused entitled to bail when no identification parade has been conducted before a Magistrate?
- Does the absence of independent witnesses in a thickly populated area warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether recovery of the disputed item alone is sufficient to deny bail when other circumstances point toward further inquiry?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ZIA PERWEZ, J.--- Through this application applicant seeks bail in the offence under section 392/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Preedy under F.T.R. No,176 of 2007.
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant lodged report at police station alleging therein that on 27-4-2007 near Gelokodiz Dry Clearners, D. Krooz Lane while he received a call, a boy came and on pistol point took his mobile phone. The complainant further alleged that his another accomplice was standing at a distance of 4/5 paces and they both went on foot towards C.I.A. Saddar.
3. ' Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is not nominated in the F.I.R. So also the physical features are not mentioned in the F.I.R. That there is no witness ofthe incident though the area is thickly-populated area. That no identification parade took place before the Magistrate. That the applicant is neither a previous convict nor was ever involved in any other case.
4. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Suleman v. Riasat Ali 2002 SCM R 1304.
5. ' On the other hand learned State Counsel has opposed the application. He contended that the applicant was arrested while in possession of the mobile. The applicant was identified by the complainant. However, he admitted that there is no previous conviction or involvement of applicant in any offence.
6. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The applicant has not been arrested from the place of incident. No independent witness is cited as witness. The applicant was not put to identification parade before the Magistrate, despite the fact that the complainant has categorically stated that he can identify the culprit on seeing. The case of Muhammad Suleman (supra) is thus, attracted to the present application. Accordingly,, the application is allowed and applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- KHAISTA MEER and another vs The STATE 2013 P Cr. L J 474
- ASTI KHAN and another vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 160