UMAR FAROOQ vs THE STATE and anothers
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving robbery and causing hurt. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on grounds of further inquiry, considering his non-nomination in the FIR, delayed identification parade, discharge of co-accused, and lack of recovery. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that a delayed identification parade without prior description of features in the FIR loses significance, and the discharge of co-accused by the police casts doubt on the petitioner's involvement. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case relies on a belated identification parade of an un-named accused whose co-accused have been discharged, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether a delayed identification parade of an accused not named in the FIR loses its evidentiary value prima facie?
- Does the discharge of co-accused by the magistrate create sufficient doubt regarding the involvement of the petitioner to justify bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no recovery has been made from his person and his further detention serves no useful purpose?
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 550, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ALTAF IBRAHIM QURESHI, J.---Through the instant petition, the petitionerUmar Farooq seeks his post-arrest bail in a case arising out of F.I.R. No.99, dated 14-3-2011, registered with Police Station Drahma, District Rajanpur under section 394, P.P.C.
2. Precisely, the prosecution story as per F.I.R. Is that on 14-3-2011 at 7-30 p.m., five unknown persons robbed the car of the complainant and during the incident; they also caused hurt with fire shot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And he has been implicated vide supplementary statement wherein no role is attributed to the petitioner; that the petitioner remained on physical remand for a considerable period but nothing could be recovered from his person; that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Sadam, Ghazi, Shafique and Muhammad Arif have been declared innocent by the police and ultimately they have been discharged by the Area Magistrate; that the petitioner is previous non-convict; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 1-4-2011 and is no more required by the police for further investigation. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed for, as his case squarely falls within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition on the grounds that the petition; has been duly identified by the complainant during Identification Parade and he remained in contact with his co-accused during the incident of robbery. It is also contended that the offence fails within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of bail.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The occurrence took place on 14-3-2011 whereas the Identification Parade was conducted on 16- 4-2011 i.e. After more than one month of the incident, which ought to have been conducted as early as possible. Even otherwise, neither the role of the petitioner is evident from the contents of the F.I.R.
Nor his features are described and in absence whereof, the Identification Parade, prima facie, loses its significance and can hardly be believed.
7. Furthermore, petitioner's co-accused namely Sadam, who is the main accused and with whom the petitioner is alleged to have made conversation, has been declared innocent and discharged by the Area Magistrate. Besides said Sadam, the other co-accused of the petitioner namely Ghazi, Shafique and Muhammad Arif after they were declared innocent, were also discharged by the Area Magistrate. This fact also casts serious doubt about mode of involvement of various persons including the present petitioner.
8. In addition to it, it would not be out of way to mention here that the car in-question in the aforementioned case. F.I.R. No.99 of 2011, has been taken into possession under section 550, Cr.P.C.
And the same has been identified by the present complainant qua which F.I.R. No.528 has been registered at Police Station Saddar, District D.G. Khan, under section 412, P.P.C. On 13-7-2011. In the said F.I.R. The present petitioner is neither named nor any material connecting him with the offence under section 412, Cr.P.C. Could come on record so far. This fact also goes in favour of the petitioner.
9. The petitioner is imprisoned in Jail since 1-4-2011. His further detention for an indefinite period would be of no avail to the prosecution, when there is no progress in the trial. On a court question, learned counsel for the complainant or the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General remained unable to point out any case wherein the petitioner was either involved or convicted.
10. In view of the above, the case of the petitioner requires further probe into his guilt within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.