MAQSOOD AHMAD vs THE STATE and others
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 96 of 2010 registered under Section 395 and subsequently added Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shakargarh, District Narowal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not named in the initial F.I.R., was implicated through a delayed supplementary statement without an identification parade, and faced recovery of an amount alongside pending criminal records. The court held that the petition should be accepted and granted the petitioner post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that implication via a delayed supplementary statement without an identification parade, coupled with the absence of explanation regarding the source of subsequent knowledge, entitles an accused to post-arrest bail even if a challan has been submitted and charges framed.
- Whether an accused not named in the initial F.I.R. and implicated through a delayed supplementary statement without an identification parade is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the submission of challan and framing of charge automatically disentitle an accused from the concession of bail?
- What is the evidentiary value of a supplementary statement recorded after a delay of three months without disclosing the source of information?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.---Through this petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks grant of post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,96 of 2010, dated 6-3-2010 for offence under section 395, P.P.C. Later on added section 412, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Shakargarh, District Narowal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of a supplementary statement of the complainant which was recorded after a delay of three months. That no identification parade was held in order to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. That a bare reading of the supplementary statement would show that it has not been stated as to how and when the complainant found out that the offence in question had been committed by the petitioner along with the other co-accused.
3. The learned D.P.-G. Has opposed the petition and has submitted that a sum of Rs,50,000 has been recovered from the petitioner. One of the co-accused Abbas is still a proclaimed offender.
The petitioner has been implicated on the basis of data which was collected after the mobile phones which were snatched from the victims, were recovered by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner has been charged with offences that fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. A bare reading of the F.I.R. Would show that the appearance and physical attributes of the accused persons have been given therein. Two other F.I.Rs, have already been registered against the petitioner. Since Challan has been submitted before the learned Trial Court on 30-7-2010 and Charge has been framed there is no occasion for enlarging the petitioner on bail.
4. After adopting the arguments of the learned D.P.-G., the learned counsel for 'respondent No,2/complainant submits that there is no previous enmity between the complainant and the petitioner. All the victims are respectable and notable persons who would never falsely implicated any person with the commission of an offence.
5. A bare reading of the F.I.R. Would show that the petitioner has not been named therein. The petitioner was implicated on the basis of a supplementary statement which was recorded by the complainant after three months of the F.I.R. Being lodged. The complainant in his supplementary statement has not stated as to how and when he came to know that the offence in question was committed by the petitioner along with other co-accused. Although Challan has been submitted and Charge has been framed by the learned Trial Court this alone would not be enough to disentitle the petitioner from the concession of bail. An assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no identification parade has been held in this case has not been negated either by the learned D.P.-G. Or the learned counsel for respondent No,2/complainat.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees One hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.