JAMSHAID ASMAT alias SHEEDU vs THE STATE and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary circumstances. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the initial F.I.R., and his name surfaced only through a supplementary statement made two months after the occurrence. Furthermore, the credibility of this statement was undermined by the complainant's subsequent exoneration of co-accused persons nominated in the same statement. The Court also noted that the alleged recovery of the stolen property was not from the petitioner's possession, and there was no evidence connecting the recovered cash or weapon to the offence. Holding that the case called for further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt and noting that the investigation was complete, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on delayed identification and questionable recoveries, the accused is entitled to bail pending trial.
- Does the delayed nomination of an accused in a supplementary statement, coupled with the exoneration of co-accused by the complainant, constitute grounds for further inquiry regarding bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the alleged stolen property was not recovered from his personal possession?
- Does the lack of evidence connecting recovered items to the specific offence charged justify the grant of bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Jamshaid Asmat alias Sheedu petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 26-4-2011 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 26-4-2011 refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in the cross-version of case F.I.R. No, 174 registered at Police Station Saddar, Hafizabad on 5-5-2010 in respect of an offence under section 392, P.P.C.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.
3. The occurrence in this case had taken place at about midnight and according to the F.I.R. The culprits perpetrating the alleged offence had remained unknown and unidentified at the spot. The petitioner had not figured in the F.I.R. In any capacity whatsoever and his name had surfaced in this case for first time through a supplementary statement made by the complainant on 1-7-2010, i,e, after about two months of the alleged occurrence. It was asserted through the said supplementary statement that the petitioner and his co-accused had been seen by some witnesses travelling on the stolen tractor and trolley. It is of some significance to mention here that some of the co- accused of the petitioner also nominated through the same supplementary statement, had subsequently been exonerated by the complainant himself which fact had substantially reduced the credibility of that supplementary statement. During the investigation the stolen trolley had allegedly been recovered at the instance of the petitioner but it is not disputed that the said trolley had been recovered from the Dera of one Shahbaz and, thus, the same had not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. We have been informed that a sum of Rs,95,000 in cash and also a gun had also been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case but it is not denied that there is nothing available on the record of investigation to connect the recovered cash or gun with the offence in issue. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and a Challan has been submitted and, therefore, physical custody of the petitioner is not required at this juncture for the purposes of investigation. The circumstances of this case detailed above lead us to an irresistible conclusion that the case against the petitioner calk for further inquiry into his guilt.
4. For what has been discussed above this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and, resultantly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Muhammad Akram vs The State and another 2022 YLR 2323