MOAZZAM ALI and another vs STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 552/2007, involving allegations of highway robbery under Sections 395, 392, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, who were not named in the FIR, sought bail on grounds including their prolonged incarceration since September 2007, the failure of the prosecution to conduct an identification parade, and the alleged fabrication of recovery evidence. The State opposed the bail, citing the recovery of identity cards and cash as sufficient evidence of involvement. The Court held that because the petitioners were not named in the FIR, no identification parade was held, and the trial had not yet commenced, the sufficiency of the alleged recoveries to connect the accused to the crime remained a matter for the trial court to determine after evidence is recorded. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners had established a case for further inquiry and granted them post-arrest bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- 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?
- Is the recovery of items from an accused sufficient to deny bail when the accused was not named in the FIR and the trial has not commenced?
- Under what circumstances does a case fall under the category of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. Moazzam Ali and Rizwan alias Irfan petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No,552 dated 15.8.2007 registered under Sections 395/392/109 PPC at Police Station Shah Kot District Nankana on the application of Moeen Hussain with the allegation that they were involved in a Highway robbery committed in the Coaster Wagon.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in the judicial lock up since 17.9.2007 and they were not named in the FIR, but no identification parade after their arrest was got conducted by the local police from the witnesses; that the recoveries of mobile phone and the amount were fake and have been planted just to strengthen the prosecution case; that the trial has not commenced as yet and in such like circumstances they are entitled to the concession of bail.
3. Learned DPG on the other hand opposes this petition on the ground that though the petitioners were not named in the FIR but keeping in view the recovery of Identity Cards and amount plus the complainant had no mala fide to falsely involve them in this case, they are not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have perused the record. The petitioners were not named in the FIR, who are in the judicial lock up since 17.9.2007 and the trial has not commenced as yet the identification parade was not got conducted and whether the alleged recovery effected from the petitioners is sufficient to connect them with the alleged offence is a question to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence and for the time being the petitioners have succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry. Hence this petition is accepted and the petitioners are allowed bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000'/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.