ABDUL JABBAR alias JABBARI vs STATE anti another
This judgment arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail by petitioner Abdul Jabbar alias Jabbari in a case registered under Sections 395, 458, 380, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Haveli Koranga, District Khanewal. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused armed with firearms, trespassed into the complainant's house and committed dacoity by looting jewellery and cash. The petitioner contended that he was not nominated in the FIR, recoveries were fabricated, and a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail. The prosecution opposed bail on grounds of positive identification during an identification parade and recovery of stolen articles. The High Court observed that at the time of initial recovery, the petitioner was merely a suspect, a similarly placed co-accused had already obtained bail, and the petitioner had remained incarcerated for an extended period without any progress in the trial. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Whether prolonged incarceration without progress in the trial warrants the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted despite positive identification in an identification parade where there is a lack of trial progress and parity with a released co-accused?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Abdul Jabbar Jabbari petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No,74/2012 dated 26.3.2012 registered under Section 395/458/ 380/412 PPC at Police Station Haveli Koranga District Khanewal.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused while armed with fire- arms in the night between 24/25.3.2012 trespassed into the house of the complainant and looted away valuable jewellery as well as cash amount.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner is false and concocted one; that the petitioner is not the nominated accused of the FIR and the alleged recovery of articles from him is fake one; that co-accused namely Fiaz Asif, who has been attributed the same role and the recovery has also been effected from him, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2012, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of ' bail.
4. On the other hand learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition and it is contended that the petitioner was duly identified during the test identification parade; that the recovery of articles has also been effected from him whereas only cash amount of Rs,2000/- was effected from co-accused Fiaz Asif, who has been enlarged on bail, therefore, the case of the petitioner is not at par with the said co-accused and as such, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner along with his co-accused was arrested on spy information on 22.6.2012 being suspect accused of this case and at the time of his arrest, recovery of certain silver jewellery along with rifle .44-bore was effected from him. The I.O. took the said articles into possession vide recovery memo dated 22.6.2012 as case property of this case. At the time of said recovery, he was mere suspect and was not arrested in this ease. However, the petitioner was put to the test identification parade on 30.6.2012 wherein he was duly identified by the complainant and the PWs as the accused, who committed robbery in the house of the complainant and thereafter, certain ornaments were also recovered on his pointation. Co-accused of the present petitioner from whom the recovery of cash amount of Rs,2000/- was effected, being case property of this case, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2012. Now the petitioner is behind the bar since 22.6.2011 without any progress in trial and this fact alone tilts the scale of justice in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.
In view of above, the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.