MUHAMMAD USMAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed on behalf of the accused Muhammad Usman in connection with an FIR registered under sections 452, 324, 337-H(ii), 365, 427, 147, 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of bail when he was not named in the FIR and no identification parade had been conducted. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant was not named in the FIR and no identification parade memo was produced to establish identification, his case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, granting bail subject to the furnishing of solvent surety. The key principle laid down is that the omission of an accused's name from the FIR coupled with the absence of an identification parade at the pre-trial stage constitutes grounds for further inquiry, making the case fit for bail.
- Whether an accused not named in the FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail when no identification parade has been conducted?
- Does the absence of an identification parade memo for an unnamed accused bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under criminal procedure?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground that the accused was apprehended in a subsequent police encounter case?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 6, Anti-Terrorism Act
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act
ORDER
1. ' SALMAN ANSARI, J.--- 1. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant! Accused Muhammad Usman son of Ilyas, the F.I.R. In this case was lodged by complainant Abdul Aleem son of Haji Abdul Khalique Soomro, a Zamindar by profession, who on 12-7-2008 was sitting in his bungalow, when at about 10-00 p.m. Eight armed persons entered in his house and attempted to kidnap him on gunpoint and meanwhile resorted to indiscriminate firing on his bungalow and damaged the house and the vehicles parked there. The complainant has named six persons along with two persons whose names were not known but could be identified on being seen again. The reason for the attack being that accused Abdul Rehman alias Adro had challenged the complainant that his father had blocked his way through police. The F.I.R. Was registered on 15-7-2008 at Police Station Bulri Shah Karim District Tando Muhammad Khan under sections 452, 324, 337-H(ii), 365, 427, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. And 6/7 of A.T. Act. The applicant/accused was arrested on 20-7-2008 in an encounter case with the police in which arms were recovered from his possession. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant/ accused.
2. ' It is argued that it is a case of ineffective firing, the applicant/ accused has not been named in the F.I.R., and no identification parade has been conducted, placing reliance on 2008 YLR 2544, (Karachi), 2008 YLR 2952 (Karachi), 2001 YLR 643 (Lahore), 2006 YLR 3022 (Karachi), 2008 PCr.LJ 1277 (Karachi), 2002 M LD 670 (Karachi), 1990 SCM R 1085, 1998 SCM R 454 and 1996 PCr.LJ 1573 (Karachi), he has prayed for bail to applicant/accused.
3. ' Learned Assistant Advocate-General has opposed the bail application on the grounds that the applicant/accused is a dangerous criminal and a dacoit and operates in the Jungle with the party of notorious dacoit Abdul Rehman alias Adro. He was apprehended in another encounter case, hence he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Having heard the arguments put forward in this case, though the F.I.R. Has been lodged on 15-7- 2008 at 1430 hours and the incident is of 12-7-2008 at 10-00 p.m. Yet, the applicant/accused Muhammad Usman has not been named in the F.I.R., as incorrectly shown in the bail order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Muhammad, no identification parade memo. Has been produced to show whether the applicant/accused was identified by the complaint, as he was not named in the F.I.R., hence I find that case of the applicant/accused, at this stage, would require further inquiry. Therefore, present bail application is allowed and the applicant/accused Muhammad Usman be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.