ZAFAR alias ZAFRI vs THE STATE and others
This criminal petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Zafar alias Zafri, in connection with F.I.R. No. 401, dated 28-11-2007, registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 at Police Station Muzaffarabad, District Multan. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused were found in possession of liquor but fled the scene upon a police raid, leaving behind two cans containing 20 liters of liquor each. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case regarding his identification. The Court observed that the F.I.R. failed to specify which police official identified the petitioner or whether the accused were previously known to the police party. Furthermore, the informer was not examined. Finding that the identification of the accused remained unverified and the prosecution's case suffered from significant evidentiary deficiencies, the Court held that the matter constituted a case of further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Does the failure of an F.I.R. to specify how an accused was identified by the police constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is a case of further inquiry established when the prosecution relies on an unexamined informer to identify an accused who fled the scene?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979
ORDER
' SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.---Petitioner seeks bail after arrest through this petition in case F.I.R. No,401, dated 28-11-2007 under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibiticn (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 F.I.R. 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 A 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.