SADAM HUSSAIN vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, who was charged under Sections 382 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged theft of a motorcar. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that the accused was entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's case suffered from significant weaknesses. Specifically, the court noted an unexplained ten-day delay in lodging the First Information Report, the absence of a description of the accused in the report, the lack of a voluntary confession, the failure to recover the stolen vehicle from the accused's direct possession, and the absence of a formal identification parade. The court determined that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the accused was connected to the offence, thereby justifying further inquiry into his guilt under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the bail application was accepted subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does an unexplained ten-day delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of bail?
- Is the absence of a formal identification parade a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to recover stolen property from the accused's direct possession entitle the accused to bail?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Having been involved in a case registered at Police Station, Tatara District Peshawar vide F.I.R. No, 224 dated 20/05/2013 under Sections 382/411, PPC, accused-petitioner Saddam Hussain has applied for bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Peshawar which was dismissed vide order dated 30.5.2013. His such prayer was also rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-XIV, Peshawar vide his order dated 6.6.2013. Hence, he has knocked the door of this Court for the same prayer.
2. Brie; tads of the case are that on 20.5.2013 complainant Shehr Yar submitted a written application to the SHO Police Station, Tatara stating therein that on 10.5.2013 at 15.30 hours four unknown persons booked his Taxi Motorcar bearing Registration No, 6046/Lahore on payment of Rs,400 as fare and when he took them near Shah Kas Madrassa situated at Phase-VII, Hayatabad, the aforementioned persons aimed their pistols at him and snatched his Taxi Motorcar. He was in search of the culprits and now has come to know that Saddam Hussain, accused-petitioner is one of the four culprits who has committed the offence in question.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that the occurrence has taken place on 10.5.2013 while the complainant has submitted written application to the SHO on 20.5.2013 after a delay of ten days for which neither reliable or plausible explanation nor features and descriptions of the accused- petitioner has been mentioned in the contents of F.I.R. what to say about source of his satisfaction that it was the accused-petitioner who committed the offence in question, has been furnished by him. Moreover, after his arrest the accused-petitioner has neither made any voluntary confessional statement nor the alleged snatched motorcar has been recovered from direct physical possession of the accused-petitioner at his pointation. Likewise, no proper identification parade has been conducted in the instant case by the Investigating Officer through Maga/Judicial Magistrate but the allegation against the accused-petitioner is that he was member of the unknown gang I dacoits who snatched the car form the complainant. Hence, at present, materials available on the record suggest that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused-petitioner is connected with the commission of offence charged with but there are grounds for further probe into his guilt and therefore, his case falls within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. on account of which he is entitled to be released on bail.
5. Resultantly, this bail application is accepted and the accused-petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.
6. Above are the reasons of my short order announced on 19.6.2013.