EHSAN ELAHI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Ehsan Elahi in connection with case F.I.R. No. 35 of 2007 registered under section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Garden Town, Lahore, concerning an incident of dacoity and carjacking. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not named in the F.I.R., no identification parade was conducted, and a co-accused attributed with similar recovery had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner's case called for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting the absence of the petitioner's name in the F.I.R., lack of an identification parade, prolonged incarceration, and the principle of consistency based on bail granted to a co-accused. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted where the accused is not named in the F.I.R., no identification parade is held, and co-accused facing similar allegations have been enlarged on bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused who is not named in the F.I.R. and where no identification parade was conducted?
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused from whom recovery was effected entitle another accused to bail on the rule of consistency?
- Whether prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of trial constitutes a ground for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' M.A. ZAFAR, J.--- Ehsan Elahi/petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,35 of 2007 dated 24- 1-2007 registered with Police Station Garden Town, Lahore, under section 395, P.P.C. At the instance of Barrister Khurram Raza/complainant.
2. As per contents of F.I.R, the complainant went to meet his friend and parked the car outside the house whereas the driver was sitting in the car. The complainant and his friend heard the hue and cry; they immediately came out and saw that five persons are trying to snatch the keys of the car from his driver. One accused called the names of other co-accused, as Yasin and Sajid Shah. The accused on the call of other co-accused fired at the driver, overpowered him, threw him out of the car and forcibly snatched his mobile and took away the car also.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R, no identification parade has been conducted by the police, no supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded and the petitioner has been involved mala fide by the police to show its efficiency as the petitioner was also arrested in another F.I.R. No,55 of 2007 and the joint recovery of car and mobile has been planted by the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed the grant of bail and submits that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence, and thus he is not entitled to grant of bail.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that Yasin, Sajid Shah and Ashraf have been named as accused in the F.I.R, but the present petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., amongst the culprits. There is delay of 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R. And no identification parade was held in this case. Co-accused Muhammad Naveed, from whom car and mobile were recovered, had already been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 28-1-2008 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,7946-B of 2007, whereas petitioner is in jail for the last about 13 months.
6. For what has been said above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bails bounds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Area Magistrate.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL HAKEEM Versus State 2012 MLD 919