ASHIQ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner, Ashiq Muhammad, sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 136, registered under sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a dacoity incident involving a passenger coach. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence against him. The prosecution's case relied primarily on a statement made by a co-accused, as the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and did not undergo an identification parade. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the legitimacy of the recoveries allegedly made from him, noting that he had been taken into physical remand after being sent to judicial lock-up. The court held that the petitioner's case fell under the ambit of further inquiry, as the evidentiary value of the co-accused's statement and the validity of the recoveries were matters to be determined at trial. Consequently, the court accepted the bail petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's guilt required further investigation, and admitted him to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Does the reliance solely on a co-accused's statement for implication constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- When does a case qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail appropriate when the accused is not named in the F.I.R. and was not subjected to an identification test?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--- Petitioner Ashiq Muhammad through the instant petition has sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,136 registered under sections 395, 412 P.P.C. With Police Station Sadder Kehror Pacca, Lodhran on 7-4-2009.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 7-4-2009 at about 2-00 em., the dacoity was committed in Hino Coach No,2297- LES and during the same the unknown dacoits having firearms after terrorizing the bus staff and the passengers of the same had looted them and deprived them of their valuables including money.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He, admittedly, was not put to any identification test. He, according to the learned D.P.-G., has been involved in this case on the statement of his co-accused Muhammad Qasim son of Ghulam Rasool recorded on 25-4-2009. The question of evidentiary value of such statement is to be gone into at trial. Admittedly, except such statement, there is no other implicatory evidence available on the record against him. However, only the recovery of Rs,11,000 two mobile phones, two sims and a pistol is shown to have been effected from him.
4. According to his learned counsel, he was sent to judicial lock-up and after one month and eleven days of the same, he was again taken out on physical remand by another Investigating Officer and such recovery was planted upon him. This question is also seriously thrashable /considerable at trial. Hence, it is yet to be.,ascertained that if he can ultimately be held liable for the alleged offence. His case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. .Calling for further inquiry into his guilt. In this regard, I place reliance upon the case of Iftikhar alias Bodi v. The State 2005 YLR 527 (Lahore).
5. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last more than six months.
6. In these circumstances of the case, I accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.