ZAFFAR IQBAL vs STATE & another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 10/2012, registered under Sections 458 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of armed robbery. The petitioner was not named in the initial FIR but was implicated through a subsequent supplementary statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his identification and the nature of the evidence. The Court held that the supplementary statement, which lacked details regarding the source of identification, could not substitute for the FIR and appeared to be an attempt to fill prosecution lacunas. Furthermore, the absence of an identification parade and the suspicious nature of the recoveries rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of further inquiry, as keeping him incarcerated indefinitely without an imminent trial served no useful purpose.
- Can a supplementary statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be equated with an FIR?
- Does the failure to hold an identification parade for an accused not named in the FIR bring a case within the ambit of further inquiry?
- Is the recovery of stolen items made in two separate instances from the same location considered prima facie doubtful?
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through the instant petition, the petitioner-Zaffar Iqbal seeks his post-arrest bail in a case arising out of FIR No, 10, dated 05.01.2012, registered with Police Station Sarwar Shaheed, District Muzaffargarh, under Sections 458/392, P.P.C.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused, armed with weapons, forced their entry into the house of the complainant and on gun-point committed robbery of gold ornaments, two mobile phones and cash amount of Rs,5000. Allegedly, three accused out of the four were identified by the complainant in the light of bulb.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner is not nominated in the FIR. He was named through supplementary statement recorded u/S. 161, Cr.P.C, which in no case, can be equated with the FIR. Generally, such statement is recorded to fill the lacunas in the prosecution case and its value can very well be determined by the learned trial Court, after recording of evidence. Even no source of information or identification has been revealed in the supplementary statement that as to how the petitioner was identified as the remaining one unknown person. In these circumstances, non-holding of identification parade, despite of the fact that the description of the accused person has been given in the FIR, bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry. Recovery of ear-rings from the petitioner was firstly made on 16.01.2012 and secondly from the same place, finger-ring was recovered on 18.01.2012. This, prima facie, makes the recovery doubtful. Petitioner is behind the bars since 11.01.2012 and no more required for further investigation. To keep the petitioner in Jail for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose, when the trial is not in sight.
5. In view of the above, the case of the petitioner requires further probe into his guilt. 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,2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.