NADEEM vs THE STATE and others
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 302 of 2011 registered under sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Model Town, Lahore, for an armed snatching incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not named in the initial F.I.R., was identified only through photographs rather than an identification parade, and had other criminal cases registered against him. The Lahore High Court held that identification through photographs is not a valid substitute for a formal identification parade under the law, that mere registration of other F.I.Rs without conviction does not debar an accused from bail, and that the case called for further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that identification through snaps or pictures does not meet the criteria for proper perception and identification of an accused, and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Is identification of an accused through photographs a valid substitute for an identification parade under Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Does the mere registration of multiple F.I.Rs against an accused disqualify him from the grant of post-arrest bail in the absence of conviction orders?
- Does the lack of naming in the F.I.R. and reliance on a belated supplementary statement bring a case within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 22, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J:---The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,302 of 2011 dated 11-9-2011, under sections 392/411, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Model Town, Lahore.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as contained in the F.I.R. Is that two unknown persons riding on a motorcycle intercepted the complainant and snatched purse, mobile (Nokia) along with Rs,43,000 on gunpoint.
' The complainant got recorded his supplementary statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 22-10- 2011 wherein he named the petitioner along with Muhammad Usman alias Baba.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. And involved only on the basis of supplementary statement got recorded after one month and 11 days; that no identification parade was conducted despite their description in F.I.R. And the petitioner was allegedly recognized by the complainant only on the basis of photographs; that the alleged recovery was planted upon the petitioner; that the petitioner is in the judicial lock up since 21-11-2011 and is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of post arrest bail.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of post arrest bail by submitting that the petitioner is known as adverse record holder. Twenty F.I.Rs, were registered against, him, some of which are of similar nature; that the recovery of .30 bore pistol, Nokia phone and currency notes was effected against him; that the offence with which the petitioner is charged is increasing day by day with an alarming pace creating panic in the minds of people at large. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of post arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, with their able assistance.
6. Neither the petitioner named in the F.I.R. Nor identification parade was ever held connecting him with the commission of alleged offence. Mere photograph cannot be valid substitute for establishing identity of the accused through identification parade as required under Article 22 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. It is well settled that a person's right perception of an object seen by him depends, inter alia, on (i) nearness to the object: (ii) capacity to see with distinctness (iii) required light (iv) the three dimensional effect of the object. Therefore, viewed from that perceptive, identification through snaps/pictures does not properly meet the above said criteria. Reliance can be had to Zulfiqar Ali v. The State, (1991 PCr.LJ 1125 (D.B)). Mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases. Does not debar him from C bail, if he is otherwise entitled. Only registration of F.I.Rs, is no ground to refuse bail unless accompanied by conviction orders. The alleged D recovery, of pistol at the instance of the petitioner is not of much significance, as it was allegedly not used during the occurrence. The evidentiary value of recovery of Nokia mobile and currency notes will be E determined at trial. In these circumstances, case of the petitioner falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And requires further inquiry.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Shahbaz Mustafa and another vs The State & another 2025 LHC 4778
- Shahbaz Mustafa Versus State 2026 YLR 564