JAWWAD KHAN alias JAVED vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 446 of 2008 registered under Section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Jamshed Quarters, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail where he was not subjected to an identification parade and the alleged recovery was joint in nature. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant was not put up for an identification parade and joint recoveries are generally inadmissible under the law, reasonable grounds existed to believe that further inquiry into his guilt was warranted. Consequently, the court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key legal principle laid down is that the absence of an identification parade and the reliance on joint recovery in appropriate circumstances bring a criminal case within the ambit of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Whether the failure to hold an identification parade entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Is a joint recovery admissible under the law when considering a bail application?
- When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.--- Granted.
2. ' Notice of the application has been waived by learned Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh. The applicant Jawwad Khan has applied for post arrest bail in Crime No,446/2008, under section 392/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Jamshed Quarters, Karachi, East.
3. ' Learned counsel contends that the applicant was arrested in a Crime under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 later booked in commission of crime of robbery. It is further contended that the applicant was not put to identification parade in respect of charges offence to the material witnesses, case against the applicant falls within the preview of further enquiry, in view of settled principle of law laid down in 1997 SCM R 412; 2006 PCr.LJ 993 and 2002 SCM R 1304.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, learned Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh has candidly conceded to the fact, that the applicant was in police custody when associated for commission of crime of robbery. He was not put to identification parade. On joint pointation of the applicant and co- accused Aftabuddin, mobile phone cash of Rs,7,000 were recovered by the police party.
5. ' I have considered the arguments advanced at bar perused the record of the case.
6. Prosecution evidence as emerges from statement of the complainant that his mobile phone, Rado wrist watch, 'cash of Rs,30,000 were looted by unidentified culprits on main Kashmir Road, inside PSO Petrol Pump. It emerges that the custody of the applicant was taken over from Jamshed, Quarters, Police Station, in Crime No,446 of 2008, he was booked in commission of crime of robbery, on joint pointation mobile phone and cash was recovered.
7. ' I am conscious of the fact that joint recovery is not admissible under the law, the applicant was not put to identification parade after arrest. At this juncture I am inclined to extend concession of bail in favour of the applicant as his case falls within the ambit of further enquiry, as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr .P.C.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, the applicant is admitted on bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 and PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. ' Criminal Bail application No, 31 of 2009 stands disposed of in the above terms.