SHAHBAZ SHARIF and another vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by Shahbaz Sharif and another in a case involving an alleged dacoity committed at gunpoint by unknown accused. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail in the absence of a test identification parade and due to unexplained delay and anonymity in their nomination in a supplementary statement. The Lahore High Court held that the failure of the investigating officer to arrange a test identification parade, coupled with the undisclosed source of the petitioners' subsequent nomination and lack of recovery from one petitioner, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the petitioners were granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where unknown accused are later nominated without a disclosed source and without holding a mandatory test identification parade despite detailed physical descriptions in the FIR, the case becomes one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether the failure to hold a test identification parade for unknown accused nominated in a supplementary statement constitutes grounds for post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of recovery and an undisclosed source of nomination make a criminal case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are petitioners entitled to bail when the complainant fails to explain the delay in nominating them despite knowing their external features?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Syed Muhammad Ali Gardazi complainant and his servant were looted at gunpoint by three unknown armed accused at night between 27/28-08.2010 when they were moving on their jeep through Industrial Area Multan; the external features of the accused and their complexion etc. had been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR.
2. The complains in rented his supplementary statement before the I.O. immediate after the registration of FIR and nominated Muhammad Zubair, '(petitioner) and Shahbaz Sharif (petitioner) as the perpetrators,' of the crime. The petitioners were arrested on 30.09.2010. Nothing was recovered from the possession of Shahbaz Sharif accused and a sum, of Rs,5000/- me recovered at the instance of Abide Hussain petitioner.
3. After having heard learned counsel for the partied and perused the record, I find that it is a case which required holding of test Identification Parade as the complainant and his servant were confident about the external features of the assailants which for the reasons, known only to the I.O. has not been got arranged. A golden opportunity for bringing on record a viable piece of evidence has been thrown' away by the Investigating Officer. It has been held time and again that the offences like dacoity etc. should be investigated by some knowledgeable and competent police officer so that the prosecution ease could stand the test of the trial. The police on countless occasions has been to conduct ;to/investigation, of such like cases/off as in a paper, approved of is the law but they do not appear to have received be Same. This Unfortunate, while if must be taken care of by those who are at the We in of affairs CP& police department before it becomes too late.
4. No reason has been advanced by the complainant as to why he could not nominate the petitioner in the FIR and how did learn the names of the accused immediately after the registration of the FIR. The source of the complainant is continuously unknown. The attending circumstances, make it a case of further inquiry in favour of the petitioners within the scope of Section 497(2)
Cr.P.C.
5. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.