Atta-Ur-Rehman vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Atta-ur-Rehman, who was implicated in a dacoity case registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the investigation, the delay in the FIR registration, and the lack of identification proceedings. The Court observed that the complainant was not an eyewitness, the FIR was registered with a significant delay of one month and fifteen days, and no identification parade was conducted. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over fifteen months, the investigation was complete, and no previous criminal record was attributed to him. While the prosecution argued that recovery had been effected from the petitioner, the Court found sufficient grounds to grant relief. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that the absence of identification and the delay in proceedings, combined with the completion of the investigation, warranted the exercise of judicial discretion in favor of the accused.
- Whether the absence of an identification parade in a dacoity case constitutes a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further police inquiry?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER M.A. ZAFAR, J. --- Atta-ur-Rehman/petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 266/2007, dated 6.6.2007 registered with Police Station City Kamoke, District Gujranwala, under Section 392, P.P.C., at the instance of Muhammad Nawaz/complainant.
2. According to the F.I.R, on 21.4.2007 at about 6.00 a.m. Within the area of Police Station City Kamoke, some unknown persons entered in the house of Muhammad Nawaz/complainant and on gun point committed dacoity and took away cash, gold ornaments and other things.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first informant is not the eyewitness of the alleged occurrence and there is unexplained day of one month and fifteen days in registration of case. The statements of two witnesses namely Muhammad Qasim and Muhammad Zaman were recorded after two months of the alleged occurrence. No identification parade was conducted and recovery has been planted upon the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General submits that case of the petitioner is not at par with his co-accused Muhammad Usman who was allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 8.4.2008 passed in Crl. M. No. 1854-B/2008, as no recovery was effected from the said accused but from the present petitioner Rs. 3,000/- and pair of ear-rings were recovered at his stance.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that first informant is not an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence, he has named the present petitioner and others on the information allegedly given to him by his neighbours and guests, who gave information to the complainant, is not disclosed in the F.I.R, by giving his name. No identification parade has been held. Although challan has been submitted in Court but neither the charge has been framed nor any witness has been examined by the prosecution so far. Petitioner is in custody for the last more than fifteen months. He is no more required to the police for the purpose Of investigation. There is ho previous record of the petitioner about his involvement in such like cases.
6. For what has been said above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,'000/- (rupees one lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.