ALI NAWAZ alias MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Ali Nawaz alias Muhammad Khan, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving abduction for ransom registered under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being implicated by the abductee in a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, notwithstanding his absence from the initial First Information Report and the delay in its registration. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the specific role attributed to the applicant by the abductee in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 outweighed the absence of his name in the First Information Report. Furthermore, the Court found the delay in lodging the First Information Report sufficiently explained and noted the applicant's involvement in seven other criminal cases. The principle established is that where an abductee specifically identifies and implicates an accused in a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the lack of an identification parade or the absence of the accused's name in the First Information Report does not automatically entitle the accused to bail.
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the First Information Report entitle them to bail when they are specifically implicated in a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an identification parade necessary when the abductee has specifically named the accused in their statement?
- Can a delay in lodging a First Information Report be considered immaterial if the complainant party was actively searching for the abductee?
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Applicant seeks bail in Crime No,27 of 2009 of Police Station, Daulatpur under section 7 A.T.A. And 365, P.P.C.
2. ' Briefly, complainant Hamayoon Kabir on 1-3-2009 lodged an F.I.R. That he is businessman by profession and his younger brother Asim Kabir and some of his relatives use to go for morning walk towards by-pass National Highway Road and on 24-2-2009 he along with his brother and the said persons after offering Fujar was walking on the National Highway, when they reached near Shaheed Yakoob Bhutto Police Picket, a cream colour Baleno car stopped near them in which four persons were sitting and,out of four persons, two were armed with Kalashnikovs and two were pistols they came out and abducted his brother Asim Kabir and while going away said that he has been abducted for ransom.
3. ' Mr. Baloch learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R.
4. And further that incident has taken place on 24-2-2009 and the F.I.R. Has been lodged on 1-3-2009 and the delay of five days is unexplained. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the statement of the abductee as well as arrest of the present applicant is on the same day i.e, 24-4- 2009 and in such circumstances false implication cannot be ruled out. It was further contended that no identification whatRoever has been taken place and thereafter it is a fit case for grant of bail. Reliance has been placed on the case of .Javed Ahmed v. State (2002 M LD 400).
5. ' On the other hand, learned Addl. P.G. Contends that perusal of 161, Cr.P.C. Statement of the abductee would reflect that he has fully implicated the present applicant with the crime and has further stated that right from time of abduction till the abductee made his escape, the present applicant was guarded the abductee. As to delay in lodging F.I.R. It was contended that in cases of like nature, the delay is immaterial.
6. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the record.
7. ' Admittedly the name of the present applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. But he has been fully implicated with specific role by the abductee in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Therefore, such plea is of no consequence. As to delay, perusal of the F.I.R. Reflect that the delay has been properly explained by submitting that the complainant party initially kept on searching for the abductee and thereafter lodged the F.I.R. As to the ground of identification pleaded by the counsel for the applicant, suffice it would be to observe that since the abductee has specifically named the present applicant, therefore, the identification parade less its importance and would not entitle the applicant any doubt entitling him to the concession of bail. It is important to observe that no enmity is pleaded to assert false implication by the complainant IInd farther that the applicant/accused is involved in seven other cases.
8. ' As to the case of Javeed Ahmed (supra), the facts of that case are totally different than the one in hand, as in that case the complainant, ' abductee and two prosecution witnesses by filing affidavit had ruled out the possibility of accused persons and consequently a doubt was created and while giving benefit of such doubt, bail was granted to the applicant, whereas in the instant case, the applicant has remained stood fast on him.
9. ' In view of the facts and circumstances, no case for bail is made out, therefore, the bail application is dismissed.