MUNIR AHMAD vs STATE and another
This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through which the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 507 of 2010 registered under Sections 394 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mitroo, District Vehari. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where he was not nominated in the FIR, no description was provided, and no identification parade was conducted, notwithstanding the alleged recovery of a pistol, mobile phone, and cash. The court held that the absence of nomination in the FIR, lack of physical description, and failure to hold an identification parade make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing requisite surety bonds.
- Whether an unnominated accused in an FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail when no identification parade was conducted?
- Does the recovery of incriminating articles alone disentitle an accused to bail in a case otherwise falling under further inquiry?
- What is the legal effect of failing to hold an identification parade for an unnominated accused?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. Through this petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 507 of 2010 dated 26.10.2010 for offences under Section 394/411, PPC registered at Police Station Mitroo District Vehari.
2. According to the FIR the complainant was traveling along with his brother in law and wife when he was way laid by two unknown persons who deprived him of his Mobile Phone and Rs, 7000/- in cash. One of the accused person fired at and injured Nazeer Ahmed who was accompanying the complainant. Similarly, the wife of the complainant also sustained an injury on her left foot.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been nominated in the FIR. No description of the accused persons have been given in the FIR. No identification parade was held to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General while opposing the petition submits that the petitioner has been charged with an offence that falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. That a pistol .30 bore, Mobile Phone and Rs, 3000/- cash stated to have been snatched from the complainant have been recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has been found to be guilty during the investigation which has been conducted.
5. Respondent No, 2/complainant has not entered appearance in spite of being informed by Naveed S.I. about the fixation of the case.
6. A bare reading of the FIR would show that the petitioner has not been nominated. No salient features of the accused persons with regard to their build, height or complexion have been given in the FIR. No identification parade was held to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence.
7. This makes it a case of further inquiry.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is allowed and the 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.