SABIR ALI and anothers vs The STATE and anothers
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail by the petitioners, Sabir Ali and Shaukat Ali, who were charged in an F.I.R. involving dacoity and house-trespass. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the lack of identification parades, the delayed nomination of the accused in the F.I.R. via supplementary statements, and the questionable nature of the evidence regarding the recovery of stolen property. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the initial F.I.R. was against unknown persons, and the complainant's self-conducted investigation to trace the suspects lacked legal validity, as the duty to investigate lies with the police. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of incriminating evidence, the lack of an identification parade, and the fact that the petitioners were first-time offenders who had been incarcerated for a significant period without the conclusion of the trial. The Court established that private efforts by a complainant to trace suspects cannot substitute for proper police investigation and hold no legal value.
- Does a private complainant have the legal authority to conduct an investigation to trace suspects in a criminal case?
- Can a bail application be granted when the accused were not identified in an identification parade and were named only in a delayed supplementary statement?
- Is the recovery of non-incriminating items sufficient grounds to deny bail in a dacoity case?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---Sabir Ali and Shaukat Ali, seek their release on bail in case. F.I.R. No, 616 of 2011, dated 22-12-2011, registered at Police Station City Pakpattan, under sections 395, 397, 458 and 412, P.P.C..
2. As per allegations contained in the crime report, some un-known persons had trespassed into the house of the complainant and after tying down the inmates of the house had taken away cash, mobile phone and other articles.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner namely Sabir Ali was earlier allowed bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, which was re-called by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which order is not legally justified, as according to the record, the complainant failed to nominate the petitioner in the crime report nor any identification parade was conducted in respect of the petitioner. He adds that the mobile phones were fakely planted upon the petitioners to show involvement of the petitioners in the case and that no proper description of the assailants has been provided in the crime report: he maintains that the name of the petitioners have been incorporated in the F.I.R. After about one year of the occurrence through the supplementary statement, which statement did not disclose any source of information about the involvement of the petitioners in the instant case.
4. The learned D.P.G. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant has controverted this submission and states that the complainant himself traced out petitioners through IMEI No, of the mobile regarding which the data was also collected. Further contends that there is no of the complainant for falsely involving them in the instant case.
5. Parties heard and record perused.
6. There is no denial of the fact that initially F.I.R. Has been lodged against some unknown persons thus in such situation it had become essential for the police to trace out the assailants and get their identification test. This submission of the counsel that the complainant himself had tracked down, the assailants, is against the spirit of law, as it is the duty of the police to itself track down the suspect and no legal value can be, attached with the effort made by the private complainant for tracing the culprits. The tracking record has also not been made part of the police file nor the police had collected the same from the concerned authority to say that the petitioners were traced when they were using the stolen mobile phones. One "Kara", of an artificial in nature, was recovered at the instance of the petitioner, which does not provide any .Incriminating evidence against them.
The petitioners are facing incarceration since 27-11-2012, whose trial has not been concluded as yet. There is nothing on the file to show that the petitioners are the history sheeters thus appears to be the first offendeRs, In this backdrop the petitioners are entitled for the release on bail.
7. For the fore going reasons, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.