ABDUL SATTAR alias PAPOO vs THE STATE
The applicant Abdul Sattar alias Papoo sought post-arrest bail under sections 497/498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of F.I.R. Crime No. 61 of 2007 registered at Police Station Kotdiji for an offence under section 17/3 of the Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail when he was implicated through a subsequent identification parade and his role was identical to a co-accused whose bail had already been dismissed on merits by the courts. The Sindh High Court held that there was no merit in the bail application and dismissed it, noting that the applicant's case could not be differentiated from that of the co-accused and did not fall within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused person's role is identical to that of a co-accused whose bail has previously been dismissed on merits, and where identification has been duly established, bail ought not to be granted under further inquiry.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when his role is identical to a co-accused whose bail has already been dismissed on merits?
- Does a case fall within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused has been positively identified in an identification parade supervised by a Judicial Magistrate?
- Is bail warranted on the ground of anonymity in the F.I.R. when the accused is subsequently identified by witnesses during a properly conducted identification parade?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 17/3, Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance
ORDER
1. ' FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, J.--- Applicant Abdul Sattar alias Papoo son of Malhar by caste Phulpoto has filed this application under sections 497/498, Cr.P.C. Seeking post arrest bail, who is involved in F.I.R Crime No,61 of 2007 registered at Police Station, Kotdiji for an offence under section 17/3 Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance.
2. ' Succinctly, the facts are that the case was initiated on an F.I.R lodged at the instance of complainant Wajid Ali son of Muhammad Bux Lashari on 7-5-2007 stating therein that on the day of report, he along with his other inmates of the house, was available in the house and heard the sound of a motorcycle outside the house and at once two persons with open faces, out of them one was armed with Pistol and another was empty handed entered into the house and held the pistol over the complainant and controlled him. Accused demanded from the complainant the keys of the safe, which were not available with him, ultimately they broke the door of the safe and took golden set, mobile set and cash and threatened the complainant party not to come near them. Complainant party raised cries, on which, his relative Aijaz Ali and neighbourer Inam Ali came running, they also saw the accused while taking away robbed property. Thereafter, both the accused went towards north on their motorcycle. Hence the F.I.R was lodged against two unknown persons. Later on accused were arrested in the present case and such identification parade was held on 31-1-2008, in which, both the accused were identified by the complainant and P. Ws.
3. ' Mr. Ellahi Bux Jamali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case; that neither the name nor description or features of the applicant, are mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the allegations levelled against unknown persons, are general in nature. Further submitted that this is a fit case for grant of bail calling for further enquiry.
4. ' Mr. Agha Ather Hussain, learned Assistant Advocate-General Sindh appearing for the State has vehemently opposed to the grant of bail on the ground that after the arrest, the applicant and co- accused Abdul Rasheed had been identified by complainant and P. Ws. In an identification parade having been supervised by the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdiji on 31-1-2008.
5. ' I have heard the arguments of Mr. Illahi Bux Jamali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Agha Ather Hussain, learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State and with their assistance I have also scanned material available on record very carefully.
6. ' Admittedly, the role assigned to the present applicant, is similar to that of co-accused Abdul Rasheed, whose bail application has already been dismissed by the learned trial Court as well as by this Court on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has not been able to differentiate the case of present applicant with the case of said co-accused as such case against the applicant, does not fall within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. ' Accordingly, I see no merits in this bail application and dismiss the same.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus State 2011 MLD 1649