MUHAMMAD SHAFEEQ vs THE STATE and anothers
The petitioner, Muhammad Shafeeq, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an FIR concerning dacoity and robbery at a factory. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not nominated in the FIR, was implicated through a delayed supplementary statement after twenty-six days on mere suspicion, and was not subjected to a test identification parade. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of the petitioner's name in the FIR, the delayed suspicion in the supplementary statement, and the failure to hold a test identification parade made the case one of further inquiry under the law. The Court established that these factors, combined with the completion of the investigation, submission of the challan, and the petitioner's status as a previous non-convict, entitled him to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused not nominated in the FIR and implicated through a delayed supplementary statement is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the failure to conduct a test identification parade make a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is a previous non-convict accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Shafique petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,411 of 2011 dated 16-8-2010 at Police Station Muzafarabad District Multan under sections 395/412, P.P.C.
2. Succinctly, the prosecution case is. That on the night of 14-8-2010, 12 unknown bandits trespassed into the premises of Messrs Khokhar Cotton Factory and Oil Mills, industrial Estate, Multan held the watchman under the shed of gun, tied him up took away net cash of Rs,7,000 a repeater gun, cell phone and cables valuing Rs,3,90,440. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 4-9-2010 after about 26 days of the occurrence in which the complainant has shown his suspicion on the petitioner along with others. Further added that no identification parade was held. Lastly submitted that the investigation is complete and the petitioner is previously non-convict. In these circumstances, he may be allowed bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned D.P.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. The complainant in his supplementary statement recorded on 4-9-2010 after about 26 days of the occurrence shown his suspicion on the petitioner and others. The petitioner was not put to test identification parade. This fact alone is sufficient to make it a case of further inquiry. The petitioner is previous non convict. Mere presence of the petitioner did not create any bar for the grant of bail if otherwise accused becomes entitled for the same. The petitioner is behind the bars. The investigation is complete and Challan has been submitted in the Court.
7. Cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees the hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.