NADEEM ABBAS vs STATE and another
The petitioner Nadeem Abbas sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 470 registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad, involving allegations of dacoity and receiving stolen property. The core legal questions revolved around whether the prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial, lack of nomination in the FIR, questionable identification through a supplementary statement, doubtful joint recovery of a motorcycle, and pendency of unconvicted criminal cases warranted the grant of bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, emphasizing that speedy trial is a statutory right, the supplementary statement lacked a source of identification, joint recoveries are inadmissible, and mere registration of other FIRs without convictions does not justify refusing bail. The court consequently allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail subject to surety bonds.
- Whether prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Is a supplementary statement lacking a source of identification sufficient to connect an accused with the crime for the purpose of bail?
- Can a joint recovery of an incriminating article be considered admissible evidence against an accused?
- Does the mere registration of multiple FIRs without any resulting conviction constitute a valid ground for refusing bail?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Nadeem Abbas, petitioner seeks his release on bail in case FIR No, 470 dated 23.04.2010 registered under Sections 395 and 412, PPC with Police Station Peoples Colony District Faisalabad containing an allegation that he alongwith his co-accused had snatched cash, mobile phones, motorcycle and gold ornaments etc.
2. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and .perusing the record, it is noticed that the petitioner is facing incarceration for the last more than two years whose trial could not be concluded as yet. Needless to say that early trial of a person is his statutory right. Further, the petitioner is not a nominated accused of the FIR who was introduced in the case through a supplementary statement which does not disclose source of identification of petitioner. Motorcycle although has been recovered but it is a joint recovery rendering it inadmissible in evidence. The submission of learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is having record of 11-cases is untenable for the reason that the prosecution could not place on record anything suggesting that he was ever convicted in any of those cases. Even otherwise, mere registration of FIRs is no ground for refusing relief of bail which is otherwise made out from the facts of the case.
3. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and Nadeem Abbas, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000/- (Rupees One hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.