MUHAMMAD UMAR and anothers vs THE STATE and another
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 395 and subsequently added section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to a dacoity committed on a bus. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were sufficiently connected to the crime to be denied bail, given that they were not named in the F.I.R., their identification through a belated supplementary statement and a video recording was questionable, and the ownership of the recovered items was unverified. The court held that the case called for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting the evidentiary value of the delayed statements and identification material would be determined at trial. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail.
- Whether the evidentiary value of a belated supplementary statement can be resolved at the bail stage or is to be gone into at trial?
- Does the absence of the accused's name in the F.I.R. and lack of an identification parade bring their case under further inquiry pursuant to section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether identification through a video not prepared at the time of the incident warrants further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
- 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.---Petitioners Muhammad Umer and Barkat Ali through the instant petition have sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,136 registered under section 395, P.P.C. With Police Station Umer Kot, Rajanpur on 7-9-2008. Later on the police have added section 412, P.P.C. In the same.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on the night preceding to 7-9-2008 a dacoity was committed in Bus No,8986-JB and during the same the unknown dacoits terrorizing the driver, conductor and 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 petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. They were not put to any identification test. The learned DPG has informed that their names for the first time have figured in the supplementary statement of Irshad Hussain, complainant/Driver and Fazal-ur-Rehman, conductor recorded on 15-10-2008 and besides than this they are clearly visible in the movie prepared at the bus stand before the departure of the bus and so they are sufficiently connected with the crime alleged and that the recovery of mobile phone and pistol from petitioner No,2 Barkat Ali has also been effected.
4. The evidentiary value of belated supplementary statement of the above named persons is to be gone into at trial. As regards, their identification through the movie got prepared at the bus stand, no doubt, it may be so but it is admitted that no such movie was prepared at the time of the alleged incident. It is the stance of their learned counsel that their photos were taken inside the police station and shown to the witnesses and hence, such movie carries no value in law. This question is also seriously thrashable/ considerable at trial. As regards the recovery of mobile phone and pistol from petitioner No,2 Barkat Ali, the learned DPG has not clearly submitted that either these were included in the looted articles or belonged to his ownself. Hence, it is yet to be ascertained that if they can ultimately be held liable for the alleged offence. Their case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into their guilt. They are stated to be behind the bars for the last more than eleven months.
5. In these circumstances of the case, A accept this petition and admit them to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lac only) each with other two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.