BILAL vs The STATE and others

ORDER

' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,1147/12 dated 1-12-2012 under sections 392, 411, P.P.C., Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent; he has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives in connivance with the local police; there is a delay of fifteen days in the registration of F.I.R. Which has not been explained by the complainant, which clearly shows that the F.I.R. Has been got recorded after due deliberations and consultations; the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.; he has been involved through supplementary statement dated 18-4-2013 i,e, after four months and eighteen days of the occurrence and that too without source; in such like cases where the accused are not named in the F.I.R. Identification parade is mandatory which has not been conducted in this case which has brought the case of the present petitioner under the ambit of further inquiry; there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence; there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence; recovery of cash has been planted upon the present petitioner in order to strengthen the prosecution case; he is behind the bars for the last three months; he is previous non-convict; investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation; his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.

3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General, after going through the record, has vehemently opposed this bail petition on the grounds that there is absolutely no malice of the complainant to falsely implicate the present petitioner in this case; as soon as the petitioner came to know about the involvement of the present petitioner in this case the complainant has got recorded his supplementary statement on 18-4-2013; the petitioner is also involved in three other cases of similar nature so he is a habitual offender; recovery of Rs,5000 has been effected from him; during investigation he has been found guilty by the investigating officer and the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; it is heinous offence so he does not deserve the concession of bail after arrest.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have also gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of fifteen days in the registration of F.I.R. Which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the F.I.R. Has been got recorded after due deliberations and consultations. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He has been involved by the complainant in this case through supplementary statement which has been recorded after four months and eighteen days of the occurrence and that too without source. It is settled law that supplementary statement without source of information has got no value in the eves of law.

Reliance can easily be placed upon 1996 SCM R, 511.1B The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. In such like cases the identification parade is mandatory to establish the identity of actual culprits.

Reliance can easily be placed upon 1997 SCM R 971 in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that holding of identification test could not be dispensed with simply because accused who is allegedly committed the robbery has been subsequently found in possession of robbed goods. Holding of identification parade is necessary if culprits are not named in the F.I.R. Holding of identification parade is not only a check against false implication but is a good piece of evidence against actual culprits. In the instant case no identification parade was conducted. Bail cannot be declined only on the ground that some cash has been recovered from accused. The petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars for the last three months.

Investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere registration of cases without conviction is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise the accused becomes entitled to the concession of bail.

5. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,200.,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Duty Magistrate.

6. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.