MUHAMMAD SAJAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of robbery. The petitioner, who was not named in the initial F.I.R. but was implicated in a supplementary statement, sought bail on grounds of consistency with a co-accused who had already been granted bail, the absence of an identification parade, and the duration of his incarceration. The core legal question was whether the failure to conduct an identification parade in a night-time occurrence where the accused was not previously known, combined with the lack of independent corroboration for recovered items, warranted bail. The Court held that the failure to hold an identification parade, as required under Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, rendered the identification process legally deficient. The Court established that an identification parade is a mandatory safeguard against false implication in cases where the culprits are not nominated in the F.I.R., and that recovery of stolen goods alone, without independent corroboration, is insufficient to deny bail when the identification process is flawed.
- Is the holding of an identification parade mandatory when the accused is not nominated in the F.I.R. and the incident occurred at night?
- Does the recovery of stolen goods, without independent corroboration, justify denying bail when the identification process is legally flawed?
- Can the failure to conduct an identification parade in accordance with Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 constitute grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 22, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
ORDER
' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,24 of 2007, dated 20-1-2007, registered under sections 392, 411, P.P.C. At Police Station Nashtar Colony, District Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case are that between intervening night of 19/20-1-2007 at about 12-15 four accused persons armed with fire-arm weapons had snatched mobile phones and currency worth Rs,8,000 from the complainant and his companions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. And no specific role has been attributed to him. The petitioner was nominated in the supplementary statement. He further submits that co-accused Muhammad Khalid had already been granted bail by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore and his case is identical to that of the present petitioner, therefore, rule of consistency demands that his bail application should also be accepted. He maintains that no identification parade was held. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last 13 months.
4. Learned A.P.-G. Has vehemently opposed this bail application and submits that the petitioner was involved in the supplementary statement and recovery of two mobile phones was effected from him and he was identified by the complainant subsequently, at a Restaurant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.-G. And have also perused the record. I am absolutely convinced that the entire incident is in oblivion as no accused person was identified by any one except for the complainant which is a routine story. As a matter of fact, identification parade should have been held in such- like situation where occurrence took place at night time and whereabouts of the accused persons are not known and they are not properly identified, therefore, identification parade should have been held in order to identify the accused persons which is a proper legal course. I am afraid, the proper legal course had not been adopted by the prosecution in order to identify the real accused persons as enunciated under Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Holding of identification parade becomes necessary in cases where tile culprits are not nominated in the F.I.R. Holding of such test is a check against false implication. It must be held as early as possible after the arrest of the accused but not later than fifteen days. Identification parade is always held for two purposes, one to establish identity of the culprit and the second to pinpoint the role played by him in the commission of the offence. Even if the identification parade is held and no role has been attributed to the accused during the commission of the offence, the identification parade loses its sanctity.
6. As far as the question of recovery is concerned, punishing somebody merely on the recovery of two mobile phones, which is not further corroborated by the independent evidence, would not justify punishing the accused person. It is a settled law that holding of identification test cannot be dispensed with, simply because the person accused of committing the robbery, has been subsequently, found in possession of the robbed goods, as such, the petitioner appears to have made out a case for being released on bail
7. Under the circumstances, this is a clear case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. I am, therefore, inclined in admitting the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
' Petition stands disposed of.
Cited by 3 cases
- Muhammad Ramzan etc vs Muhammad Ramzan etc 2023 LHC 3274, 2023 PLJ Lahore 605
- ZAKRI YA vs The STATE and another 2017 YLR 278
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus State 2016 YLRN 110