RIAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Riaz Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 413/05 registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Mian Channu, District Khanewal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest given his non-nomination in the initial F.I.R., delay in recording the supplementary statement, lack of identification parade, absence of recovery, and the rule of consistency vis-a-vis a co-accused who was already granted bail. The court held that the petitioner made out a case for bail, noting that he was not named in the F.I.R., was implicated belatedly via a supplementary statement after two months without an identification parade, had no recoveries effected against him, and that the sole evidence of an extra-judicial confession was before interested witnesses. Furthermore, the principle of consistency applied since a co-accused had already been admitted to bail. The petition was consequently accepted.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when not named in the initial F.I.R. and implicated only through a belated supplementary statement without an identification parade?
- Does the law of consistency warrant the grant of bail to an accused whose co-accused, named in the F.I.R., has already been admitted to bail?
- What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession made before interested witnesses in the context of a bail application?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No,413/05 dated 5-8-2005 for offence under section 392, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Mian Channu, District Khanewal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the night of the occurrence while the complainant and his son were sleeping on the roof of their house two unknown accused trespassed into the house of the complainant who were armed with weapons. The said accused under threat took away cash Jewellery and other household articles.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R. Nor any specific role has been attributed to him although the other accused were named therein on account of suspicion; that in the supplementary statement recorded by the complainant after a lapse of more than two months, the petitioner was nominated as one of the accused who was not identified at the time of occurrence that no identification parade was held in the case that no recovery had been effected from the petitioner against whom the only evidence was that of extra-judicial confession and that too before the interested witnesses; that the co- accused of the petitioner who was named in the F.I.R. Shown to be armed had been granted bail hence the petitioner was also entitled to the concession of bail keeping in view the law of consistency.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail application.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for die parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R. Nor any specific role has been attributed to him although the other accused were named therein. No identification parade was held in the case and the petitioner has been nominated in the F.I.R. At the instance of the complainant on the basis of supplementary statement recorded after more than two months of the occurrence. Further no recovery had been effected from the petitioner and the only evidence against the petitioner is that of extra-judicial confession made before the complainant and other witnesses related to the complainant. Admittedly, Imran coaccused who had been nominated in the F.I.R. Has been granted bail and law of consistency requires that the petitioner may also be granted bail.
7. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail.
Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.