SHAHZAD alias SHADDA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shahzad alias Shadda, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under sections 394 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his arrest and the evidentiary basis of his implication. The petitioner argued that his nomination in the First Information Report was based solely on a supplementary statement without a disclosed source, and that there were significant discrepancies regarding the date of his arrest, which was corroborated by a habeas corpus proceeding where he alleged illegal detention and torture. The Court held that the lack of a clear evidentiary link and the conflicting accounts of the arrest created sufficient reasonable doubt regarding the petitioner's involvement. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where there is reasonable doubt regarding an accused's involvement and the matter requires deeper appreciation of evidence, bail may be granted even in offences falling within the prohibitory clause.
- Can bail be granted in offences falling within the prohibitory clause when there is reasonable doubt regarding the accused's involvement?
- Does the absence of a disclosed source in a supplementary statement implicating an accused create grounds for bail?
- Can discrepancies in the recorded date of arrest and allegations of illegal detention support a claim for post-arrest bail?
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' EJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.-Shahzad alias Shadda, petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No, 847 of 2008 dated 23-10-2008 under sections 394/ 412, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad.
2. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested on 22-10-2008; that mother of the petitioner filed Habeas Corpus Petition No,1203-H of 2008 in this Court; the petitioner was recovered and produced before this Court, when it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was an accused of case F. I. R. No, 703 of 2008 under section 392, P.P.C. And that his arrest in that case was recorded as on 27-10-2008 at 7-30 a.m. It is further contended that in the case in hand the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of supplementary statement, but no source of the information has been brought on record; that the Police has allegedly effected some recoveries, which, however, do not connect the petitioner with the alleged incident.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has contended that the petitioner is involved in number of cases, which have been registered on different occasions and he being criminal bent of mind is not entitled to the concession of bail and that his requests of bail have repeatedly been declined by the Courts below.
I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record carefully According to the contents of the F.I.R. It is clear that the names of the accused wet not mentioned and it was in supplementary statement that the name of the petitioner appeared as one of the accused without disclosing any source, from which the complainant came to know name and other particulars of the petitioner. It is also on record that the mother of the petitioner file Criminal Miscellaneous No,1203-H of 2008 in this Court; a Bailiff produced the petitioner before this Court on 31-10-200 as an alleged detenue and he claimed that had been arrested on 22-10-2008 and was severely tortured. On the other hand, the stand of Police was that the petitioner had been arrested on 27- 10.2008 at 7-50 a.m. In a case F. I. R. No, 703 of 2008, date 25-10-2008. It is also to be noted that di petitioner was not a nominated accused in that case, he was involved in that case the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant. In the circumstances narrate above there is sufficient material to cause reasonable doubt about the involvement of petitioner in this case Wherever there is reasonable doubt an matter requires deeper appreciation, bail can be granted to the petitioner even in the offences falling within the prohibitory clause. Reliance can be placed on the case reported as PLD 1972 SC 277. Resultantly I accept this petition and release the petitioner on bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,00 (one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.