YASIR vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 106 of 2006 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Saddar Pasrur, District Sialkot, for the alleged murder of three persons. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail despite being implicated through a supplementary statement, identified during an identification parade, connected through the recovery of a .44 bore rifle, and charged with an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the petition lacks merit and dismissed it, noting that the offense entails a capital sentence, falls within the prohibitory clause, and that the petitioner was identified by witnesses and linked to the crime through recoveries and evidence of financial motive, aligning with the treatment of a co-accused whose bail was previously dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is charged with a capital offense falling within the prohibitory clause, is identified in an identification parade, and has incriminating recoveries and motive linked to him, post-arrest bail is rightly refused.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when charged with an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade where witnesses successfully identify the accused?
- Does implication through a supplementary statement bar the denial of post-arrest bail when corroborated by other incriminating evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,106 of 2006 dated 28-2-2006 for offences under section 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar Pasrur, District Sialkot.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner and his co-accused while armed with fire-arm weapons are alleged to have committed the murder of two brothers of the complainant as well as his nephew.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been implicated in the case on the basis of a supplementary statement which has no value; that the petitioner was known to the complainant and non-mentioning of his name in the F.I.R. Creates doubt about the veracity of the allegations levelled therein; that the petitioner has not been identified by two independent witnesses during the identification parade; that no motive is ascribed to the petitioner in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about fifteen months, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. The contents of the F.I.R. Reveal that apart from the nominated accused three unknown persons were also responsible for committing the murder of three innocent persons. The complainant in his supplementary statement nominated the petitioner as one of unknown person who had participated in the said gruesome occurrence. Identification parade was held in which the petitioner was identified by the three witnesses. During investigation, a .44 bore rifle was recovered from the petitioner which further connects him with the prosecution case. Needless to add that a number of empties of assorted calibers were also recovered from the spot by the police.
' The offence with which the petitioner is charged entails capital sentence, therefore, the same squarely falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. A It is also in the evidence that the petitioner has received money from Shahid Nawaz the main accused for playing a vital role in the .
Murder of the deceased. The order dated 14-11-2006 passed in Crl. Misc No,8749-B of 2006, whereby Razzaq Khan, the co-accused of the petitioner was declined bail by this Court, has been perused. I have no reason to deviate from the conclusions drawn by this Court while dismissing the bail petition of Razzaq Khan accused.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition has no merit which is dismissed.