SAEED AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Saeed Ahmed, who was accused in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 379, 511, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the absence of identification in the FIR, the lack of specific roles assigned to the accused, the delay in holding an identification parade, and the applicant's acquittal in a related arms case. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's case against him required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the applicant's prolonged incarceration without trial, coupled with the evidentiary gaps regarding identification and the lack of specific attribution of the fatal injury, warranted the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case through timely identification and specific role attribution, and where the accused has suffered prolonged pre-trial detention, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does a delay in holding an identification parade and the absence of the accused's name in the FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused person be granted bail if they have been detained for a prolonged period without trial?
- Does an acquittal in a separate case regarding the recovery of a weapon impact the court's assessment of a bail application in the main criminal case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 13(d), Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SYED SHAFQAT ALI SHAH MASOOMI, J.---The applicant seeks bail in Crime No,185 of 2003, registered under sections 302, 379, 511, 148, 149, P.P.C., with Police Station Ratodero, Larkana.
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell are that on 12-12-2003, complainant Mohammad Zaman lodged report with Police Station Ratodero, to the effect that on the fateful night he along with his brothers, namely, Ghulam Jan, Mohammad Jan and their cousin Shahzado were present on their lands, where at about midnight time, five persons came there, out of them three were with guns and two were with hatchets, who tried to commit theft of grains from their lands; the complainant party offered them resistances, to which the culprits having guns fired at brother of complainant, namely, Ghulam Jan. The injured Ghulam Jan was taken to hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The complainant then went to Police Station and lodged F.I.R. Against five unknown persons.
3. ' Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned State counsel opposed grant of bail.
4. ' The alleged incident took place on 11-12-2003 at 2330 hours, and F.I.R. Was registered on 12-12- 2003 at 0900 hours. Complainant has stated in the F.I.R. That there were five unidentified persons, out of them three were armed with guns and two were armed with hatchets. He further stated that he did not identify the culprits at that time. Even in 161, Cr.P.C. Statements, the name of the applicant does not transpire. Marks of identification of culprits are neither mentioned in the F.I.R. Nor in 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of P.Ws. No Specific role has been assigned to any accused that who caused the injury to the deceased. Only on 4-1-2004 applicant was apprehended as suspect and after his identification parade was not held immediately on the same day or on the next day. Police kept him in police station from 4-1-2004, upto 12-2-2004, hence identification parade was held after eight days, and it was held jointly. The applicant has remained in jail for more than four years and it is well settled law thk no one can be confined in jail as punishment. So far the recovery of gun is concerned, a separate case was registered against the accused under section 13(d) Arms Ordinance, and he was challaned in the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-II, Ratodero, and applicant stands acquitted in the said case vide judgment, dated 20-5-2006.
5. ' For the above reasons the case of applicant comes within ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The applicant has successfully made out a case of further enquiry, therefore, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,300,000 (Three lacs), and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
6. ' The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of bail application and may not influence the mind of trial Court which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to merits of the case.