UMAR DARAZ vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 302 and 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 17 of the Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner was accused of committing double murder during a dacoity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the lack of identification and the nature of the evidence. The Court observed that the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR, no identification parade was conducted after his arrest, and no incriminating recovery was made. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's implication based on the suspicion of the complainant and the disclosure of co-accused lacked prima facie legal value. Consequently, the Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry and granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not named in the FIR and no identification parade is held, their implication based solely on co-accused disclosure and complainant suspicion warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the failure to conduct an identification parade for an accused not named in the FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Does the disclosure statement of a co-accused have sufficient legal value to deny bail to an accused not named in the FIR?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when there is no incriminating recovery and the prosecution relies solely on suspicion?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17, Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail through this petition in case FIR No, 609 dated 30.12.2005 registered u/S. 302/460 read with Section 17 Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VI of 1979 at Police Station Yousafwala, District Sahiwal. Allegedly the petitioner alongwith his co- accused committed qati-i-amd of Muhammad Amjad and Mst. Fauzia during commission of dacoity after breaking into the house of the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner repeated grounds mentioned in this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner remained fugitive from law for a period of more than one year Sufficient material existed on the record providing reasons to believe that the petitioner was liable for commission of double murder and third who was in the womb of Mst. Fauzia. He was not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The petitioner is not nominated in the FIR. Under such circumstances at least identification parade must have been held after arrest of the petitioner which was not conducted. The identification marks of the unknown persons accompanying named accused were not mentioned in the FIR. The proceedings conducted for abscondonce are of mechanical nature. No incriminating recovery was affected from the petitioner. He has been implicated on suspension of the complainant and the witnesses and disclosure of his co-accused which prima facie has no legal value.
5. It is found to be a case of further inquiry to the extent of the petitioner who is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (one lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.