Muhammad Waseem Iftikhar Awan vs The State And Another
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 1644 of 2010 registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 467, and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Satto Katla, Lahore, relating to fraudulent withdrawal of money from bank accounts through forged cheques and SIM card manipulation. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when he is not nominated in the FIR, is implicated solely through a co-accused's statement without corroborative recovery or identification parade, and has already been behind bars for a significant period without further need for investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case falls prima facie within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the principle that uncorroborated statements of co-accused, absence of judicial identification parades, lack of incriminating recoveries, and completion of investigation make a strong ground for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when not nominated in the FIR and implicated solely on the statement of a co-accused?
- Does the absence of incriminating recovery and identification parade make a criminal case one of further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted where the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for investigative purposes?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 1644/2010 registered at Police Station Satto Katla, Lahore under Sections 420, 468, 471, 467, 409, P.P.C.
2. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.8.2010 an amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- was withdrawn from the account of Syed Abid Hussain Bukhari, Account-holder of MCB Ghazi Chowk Branch, Lahore and on the complaint of said customer that he had not issued the cheque, it was found that the cheque was encashed on 13.8.2010 by one Muhammad Rasheed son of Taj Din after the confirmation call of the customer. It was further disclosed that on 13.8.2010 the 'SIM' of customer was again issued after its blockage and same person (Muhammad Rasheed) also fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs: 17,75,000/- from MCB Model Town Branch, Lahore and similar occurrence has been reported in MCB Johar, Town Branch, Lahore, MCB Defence-A Branch, Lahore and even in MCB Industrial Area Branch, Islamabad and he aLongwith co-accused is working as a gang for this purpose.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that he has falsely been involved in this case. Further argued that petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R., he has been involved only on the basis of footage of the bank in some other case wherein he was present with the co-accused but the said footage has not been brought on record. It has also been argued that no identification parade was conducted, only statement of co-accused is on the record regarding his involvement in this case, investigation of the case is "complete, he is behind the bars and no more required for the purpose of investigation. Lastly argued that petitioner is. Previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned D.P.G. Has vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that petitioner alongwith his co-accused is involved in a heinous offence, as such, is not entitled for the concession of bail.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. We have gone through the available record. Petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. Later on, he was involved in this case on the statement of co-accused. The petitioner was arrested, his physical remand was obtained but neither anything was recovered from him nor any further piece of evidence could be collected by the Investigating Officer to corroborate the statement of co- accused about the involvement of the petitioner. Prima facie, there is nothing on the record to establish that the petitioner is involved in fabricating and using the forged cheque or involved in blocking the 'SIM' of cell number of the concerned account- holder. The involvement of the petitioner in this case can only be ascertained at the time f trial after recording of evidence. Prima facie, case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry. He is behind the. Bars since 28.12.2010 and is no more required for the purpose of investigation. He has already been granted post arrest bail in two other cases of similar nature. Moreover, he has been involved on the statement of co-accused and no identification parade of the petitioner was held to connect him with the commission of crime.
7. Cumulative effect of above discussion is that this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to postarrest bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 500,0. 00/- with two sureties |n the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.