MUHAMMAD KASHIF vs STATE and another
This criminal petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving theft and possession of stolen property registered under Sections 457, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the initial FIR and was implicated solely based on a supplementary statement expressing mere suspicion without an identification parade, was entitled to the concession of bail. The Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, no overt act was attributed to him, and no identification parade had been conducted to connect him to the alleged offence. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not named in the FIR and is implicated only through a supplementary statement based on suspicion, without the support of an identification parade, the case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when not named in the FIR and implicated only through a supplementary statement based on suspicion?
- Does the absence of an identification parade in a case where the accused is not named in the FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted to an accused despite allegations of recovery of stolen property during investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Through this petition, filed under Section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 159/2011 dated 06.03.2011 for offences under Sections 457/380/411 PPC registered at Police Station City Muzaffargarh District Muzaffargarh.
2. According to the FIR Muhammad Ahsan along with four other persons committed theft of clothing material belonging to the petitioner valuing Rs, 13,46,350/-. On 09.03.2011 the complainant got his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that he had good reasons for suspecting that the offence in question has been committed by the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and no overt act has been attributed to him. The petitioner has been implicated on the basis of a supplementary statement which was recorded by the complainant wherein it has merely been stated that the complainant suspected that the offence in question has been committed by the petitioner. The complainant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not mentioned as to how he has found out that the offence in question has been committed by the petitioner.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General and the learned counsel for Respondent No, 2/complainant have opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner has been found to be guilty during the investigation which has been conducted. That clothing material stolen from the shop of the complainant valuing Rs, 2,17,000/f has been recovered from the petitioner. There is no mala fide on the part of the complainant to have falsely implicated the petitioner. Two other FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner for having committed theft.
5. A bare reading of the FIR would show that the petitioner is not named therein. The ,petitioner stands implicated on the basis of a supplementary statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that he has good grounds for suspecting that the offence in question has been committed by the petitioner. Admittedly no identification parade was held to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. The petitioner is previous non-convict.
6. For what has been stated above, this petition, is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Its 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.