MUHAMMAD SHAHID vs STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Shahid, seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 114/2009 registered under Section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Darakhshan, Karachi. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of identification in the FIR, delay in lodging the FIR, defective identification parade, and absence of a separate case for alleged recovery under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as his name and description were missing from the FIR, the four-day delay was unexplained, and no proper identification parade before a Magistrate was conducted. The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of record pointing towards missing essential links such as proper identification and unexplained delay warrants the grant of bail for further inquiry.
- Whether the absence of the accused's name and description in the FIR makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does an identification parade conducted before the police rather than a Magistrate affect the case of the prosecution for the purpose of bail?
- Whether an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the FIR entitles the accused to post-arrest bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. The applicant has applied for bail in Crime No: 114/2009 of P.S. Darakhshan registered for the offence under Section 392/34 P.P.C. Prior to this he has applied for bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South on 24.4.2009.
2. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that on 23.2.2009 at 1800 hours complainant Tanveer Rana lodged the F.I.R. in which he has stated that on 19.2.2009 at about 0145 hours inside Flat No:201, 2nd Floor, Building No:19/C, Khayaban-e-Shamshir, Phase-V, D.H.A. Karachi, at night time he was sleeping along-with children in his house, subsequently the door was knocked he opened the door and found a person in police dress he asked for search of the flat, they entered into the flat and shown pistol and two persons wearing paint shirt duly armed with pistol also entered into the flat.
3. All the three had pistol in their hands and forcefully entered into his house and kept on showing weapons and talking forcefully took out Rs, 14,000/- from the wardrobe and two set of mobile phones of L.G. and Nokia together with the gold two separate sets, 14 bangles, and two heavy bangles total gold ornaments approximately 12 to 13 Lacs were snatched on gun point, they said while leaving that they are going to a flat on the above story and will return him, his cash amount.
4. They were scared of the weapons and therefore could not do any thing, thereafter the complainant went to P.S. and lodged this F.I.R.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argued that the police of P.S. Darakhshan.
6. He further argued that no offence has been committed by the applicant/accused, therefore he may be granted bail.
7. Learned state counsel has opposed the application on the ground that the recovery has been effected from the applicant, therefore he is not entitled for bail.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned state counsel and perused the material available on record. It appears that the name, features description of the applicant are not mentioned in the F.I.R. There is delay of four days in lodging of F.I.R., which has not been explained plausibly by the complainant. No identification parade of the applicant/accused was held before the Magistrate. However, it was held before the police. No F.I.R. under Section 411 P.P.C. in respect of the alleged recovery has been lodged against the accused by the prosecution. The applicant/accused was said to have been arrested in Crime No: 124/2009 and he has been granted bail in that crime by the learned IInd Assistant Sessions Judge, so also in another case Crime No: 125/2009 he was granted bail by the learned Ist Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate.
9. In view of the above I am of the considered view that the applicant/accused has made out a case for further enquiry as envisaged under sub-clause-(ii) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. which requires further enquiry, therefore, I allow this bail application and grant bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.