ZAFAR alias ZAFRI vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, following an alleged recovery of liquor by police. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused fled the scene during a raid, leaving behind two cans of liquor, and were identified solely based on information provided by an informer. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the FIR failed to specify who among the police party identified the petitioner or whether the petitioner was previously known to the police. Furthermore, the informer was not examined. The Court held that the lack of credible identification evidence and the reliance on unverified spy information rendered the case one of further inquiry under the law governing bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petition, directing the petitioner to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, thereby establishing the principle that identification of an accused by police based solely on unexamined spy information, without further corroboration, constitutes grounds for further inquiry in bail matters.
- Does an FIR based solely on unverified spy information regarding the identity of an accused constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is the failure of the prosecution to establish how an accused was identified by the police a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail after arrest through this petition in case FIR No, 401 dated 28.11.2007 under Articles 3 & 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad District Multan.
2. According to prosecution story the police party received spy information that two unknown persons were keeping possession of liquor and when raid was conducted both of them succeeded in running away after leaving two cans which were containing 20 liters of liquor each. Their names were disclosed by the informer as Zafar petitioner and his co-accused Javed.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The FIR lacks the information as to who amongst the police party identified the petitioner or whether or not the petitioner and his co-accused were known to any one of them. The record is also silent in this context. The informer obviously was not examined. In view of the above facts this is found to be a case of further inquiry. This petition, therefore, is allowed and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.