ZAHID KHAN and another vs THE STATE
This bail application was moved on behalf of the applicants Zahid Khan and Anwar Deyar seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving the forcible snatching of a car, cash, and a mobile phone at gunpoint. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicants made out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence given the discrepancies in identification. The Sindh High Court held that although an identification parade was conducted where the complainant picked out the applicants, the complainant subsequently denied their identity during evidence, bringing the matter into the realm of further inquiry. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicants upon furnishing suitable sureties. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions and the subsequent denial of identity by a complainant during proceedings can render a case one of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether contradictions regarding the identification of accused persons make a case one of further inquiry?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the complainant denies the identity of the accused during evidence?
- What is the effect of a complainant failing to maintain identification during trial on a bail plea?
ORDER
' SALMAN ANSARI, J.---This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicants/accused Zahid Khan and Anwar Deyar.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 3-12-2007 at 2050 hours when the complainant Shahzad Waseem as Selector in Pakistan Army, parked his car at Gulf Shopping Centre in the Parking Area and went along with his family into the market, when he returned back and tried to start the car four boys aged about 22/23 years with pistols forcibly snatched his car and Rs, 2000 and mobile phone from him. Subsequently, on 5-12-2007 the complainant was informed by the ACLC that his car has recovered, in his evidence he states that accused present in Court are the same who had snatched his car from him.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for applicant/accused that complainant had failed to identify the applicants/accused hence the matter requires further enquiry as there are no other eye- witness to the incident. Learned Additional Prosecution-General appearing for the State has opposed the bail application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants/accused and learned Additional Prosecution-General.
5. Taking into consideration that the identification parade has been conducted in which complainant had picked out both the applicants in the identification parade conducted before the learned Magistrate but subsequently denied the identity during the evidence, hence the case of applicants/accused is one of further enquiry.
6. Under the circumstances, without discussing other merit of the case at this stage bail plea is made out. Accordingly, I allow this bail application. Let applicants be released on bail upon furnishing sureties in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 each and executing P.R. Bond to the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.