MUHAMMAD SHAHID vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused in a case registered under Section 392 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an alleged armed robbery. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the prosecution's case required further enquiry. The Court emphasized that where the FIR lacks specific identification of the accused, there is an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, and no judicial identification parade has been conducted, the case falls within the scope of 'further enquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the absence of a separate criminal case under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the alleged recovery of stolen property weakens the prosecution's stance. Consequently, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right when the evidence is not prima facie sufficient to connect him to the crime.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Is a police-conducted identification parade sufficient to establish the identity of an accused for the purpose of denying bail?
- Does the absence of a separate case under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding alleged recoveries weaken the prosecution's case for bail purposes?
- When does a criminal case qualify for 'further enquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. 'MAQBOOL AHMED AWAN, J.--The applicant has applied for bail in Crime No,114 of 2009 of Police Station Darakhshan registered for the offence under section 392/34, P.P.C.
2. 'Prior to this he has applied for bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South on 24-4-2009.
3. 'Precisely the case of the prosecution is that on 23-2-2009 at 1800 hours complainant Tanveer Rana lodged the F.I.R. In which he has stated that on 19-2-2009 at about 0145 hours inside Flat No,201, 2nd Floor, Building No,19/C, Khayaban-e-Shamshir, Phase-V, Defence Housing Authority Karachi, at night time he was sleeping along with children in his house, subsequently the door was knocked, he opened the door and found a person in police dress, he asked for search of the flat, they entered into the flat and shown pistol and two persons wearing pant shirt duly armed with pistol also entered into the flat. All the three had pistols in their hands and forcefully entered into his house and kept on showing weapons and talking forcefully took out Rs,14,000 from the wardrobe and two sets of mobile phones of L.G. And Nokia together with the gold two separate sets, 14 bangles, and two heavy bangles total gold ornaments approximately 12 to 13 lacs were snatched on gun-point, they said while leaving that they are going to a flat on the above storey and will return him, his cash amount. They were scared of the weapons and therefore could not do anything, thereafter the complainant went to P.S. And lodged this F.I.R.
4. 'Learned counsel appearing on, behalf of the applicant argued that the police of P.S. Darakhshan(sic). He further argued that no offence has been committed by the applicant/accused, therefore he may be granted bail.
5. 'Learned State counsel has opposed the application on the ground that the recovery has been effected from the applicant, therefore he is not entitled for bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned State counsel and perused the material available on record. It appears that the name, features description of the application are not mentioned in the F.I.R. There is delay of four days in lodging of F.I.R., which has not been explained plausibly by the complainant. No identification parade of the applicant/accused was held before the Magistrate. However, it was held before the police. No F.I.R. Under section 411, P.P.C. In respect of the alleged recovery has been lodged against the accused by the prosecution. The applicant/accused was said to have been arrested in Crime No,124/2009 and he has been granted bail in that crime by the learned IInd Assistant Sessions Judge, so also in another case Crime No,125/2009 he was granted bail by the learned 1st Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate.
7. 'In view of the above I am of the considered view that the applicant/accused has made out a case for further enquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which requires further enquiry, therefore, I allow this bail application and grant bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ZOHAIB YAMEEN SHAIKH vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 2324