MUHAMMAD ATIQ and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed on behalf of four applicants seeking pre-trial release in a case involving charges of house trespass, robbery, and the murder of a woman by hanging. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the incriminating material on record, including identification parade results, section 164 statements, and recovery of looted articles, notwithstanding delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the identification parade. The court held that the applicants are not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage, as prima facie sufficient incriminating evidence connects them to the crime and warrants withholding bail until material witnesses are examined before the trial court. The key principle laid down is that where accused persons are positively identified during an identification parade, implicated through recorded judicial statements, and connected to recoveries, further inquiry under the statutory provisions for bail does not arise at the pre-trial stage.
- Whether an accused identified in an identification parade and implicated through judicial statements is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a delay in lodging the FIR and conducting an identification parade automatically entitle the accused to bail under the rule of further inquiry?
- Whether bail can be refused when looted articles are recovered at the pointation of the accused in the presence of independent witnesses?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SALMAN ANSARI, J.-This bail application has been moved on behalf of the four applicants above named.
2. ' Brief facts of the case being that on 23-2-2008 while at his work place the complainant was informed to reach his house immediately, where he found a lot of people gathered, his sister in law Eram Naz narrated the incident that four persons had entered their house, on waking up the culprits tied her up but she managed to crawl to the other room where she found that the culprits had hanged and killed his wife Kishwar Naz, golden ornaments and valuables had been stolen. F.I.R, was lodged on 26-2-2008, the accused/ applicants were arrested on 10-3-2008. Identification parade was conducted and the eye-witnesses picked out the accused, statements under section 164, Cr.P.C, were recorded of material witnesses, the learned Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi Central rejected the bail application of the four accused/applicants by order dated 27-9- 2008 hence this bail application.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicants has argued that there is unexplained delay in the lodging of the F.I.R, the complainant had not named the applicants in the F.I.R, the allegedly robbed property was recovered from the house of the complainant, there is delay in conducting identification parade, and recording of 164, Cr.P.C. Statements, placing reliance upon 2007 PCr.LJ 1049 (Muhammad Nawaz v. The State), 2008 YLR 1968 (Tassawar Hussain v. The State), 2008 YLR 1179 (Shamsullah v. The State) the learned counsel of the applicants has argued that the case requires further inquiry hence bail application be allowed.
4. ' The learned. State counsel has not opposed the bail application.
5. ' Having heard the arguments, I reproduce the reasons given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for rejection of bail, being; ' Record indicates that present applicants/accused have been identified during identification parade by three prosecution witnesses. The record further indicates that statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Were also recorded whereby P.W. Erum Naz, Hafiz Khan Muhammad and Rahimuddin have fully implicated present applicants/accused. The record further indicates that at the pointation of present applicant/ accused looted articles were got recovered in presence of independent witnesses..
6. ' I find no error in the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in his order rejecting the bail application, in my opinion until and unless the evidence of the eye-witnesses is recorded especially of P.W. Erum Naz who was present at the time of the incident and of the witnesses who had identified the applicants/accused in the identification parade, finding that the applicant/accused are not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage, I reject his bail application. This with due respects to the case-law cited which I find from its bare reading, the findings not to apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.