SHAHZAD ASHRAF vs AKBAR SHAH and others
This matter concerns a petition for the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondent in a criminal case involving dacoity and theft. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to bail given the prosecution's evidence, specifically the identification parade and the recovery of stolen property, which had been previously misconstrued by the court due to confusion regarding the dates of arrest across two separate FIRs. The Court held that the initial bail order was based on a misunderstanding of the record. Upon reviewing the case diaries, the Court clarified that the respondent's arrest in the present case was legally consistent with his apprehension in a related case, and that the subsequent identification parade and recovery of stolen gold ornaments provided sufficient prima facie evidence of his involvement. Consequently, the Court recalled the previous bail order, holding that no grounds for bail existed, and ordered the respondent to be taken into custody to face trial, while directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
- Can a bail order be recalled if it was based on a factual misunderstanding of the arrest record?
- Does the recovery of stolen property and positive identification in a parade constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in a dacoity case?
- Is a discrepancy in the dates of arrest across multiple FIRs sufficient to warrant bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SH. NAJAM-UL-HASSAN, J.---The _petitioner was allowed bail by this court in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 11492-B/2013 dated 22-10-2013 in case F.I.R No, 94 dated 14-3-2013 under sections 395/ 397/411, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sadar Muridkey District Sheikhupura and the said bail granting order was assailed by the complainant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 23-12-2013 the matter was remanded back to this court for treating the same as petition for cancellation of bail in the above said case as statedly the order was outcome of improper assistance provided to the court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent No,1 was arrested in case F.I.R No, 331 of 2012 on 19-6-2013 and such case was registered under sections 395/397/412 P.P.C. At Police Station Muridkey District Sheikhupura; that during the interrogation, on the very first day, the petitioner admitted the occurrence which was mentioned in case F.I.R No,94 dated 14-3-2013 under sections 395/397/412 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sadar Muridkey District Sheikhupura so arrest of the respondent in case F.I.R. No, 331 of 2012 was deferred and he was sent to judicial lock up in case. F.I.R No, 94 of 2013 for identification parade and ultimately he was put to identification parade on 24-6-2013 where he was duly identified by the complainant of case F.I.R No, 94 of 2013, namely, Shahzad Ashraf and one Ilyas and thereafter he was shown arrested in case F.I.R No, 331 of 2012 on 1-7-2013; that after the identification parade, the respondent got recovered gold ornaments statedly the stolen property which was later on identified by the complainant and the witnesses; that the respondent was fully involved and challan was submitted in court but due to some misunderstanding in the bail granting order it was rather considered that as the petitioner was arrested in case F.I.R No, 331 of 2012 and during interrogation he admitted the occurrence of case F.I.R No, 94 of 2013 and in the record he was statedly arrested in case F.I.R No, 331 of 2012 on 19-6- 2013 so the matter regarding his admission of involvement in case F.I.R No, 94 of 2013 apparently does not appeal to mind but while considering this aspect, the respondent was allowed bail by this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the record indicates that respondent was taken into custody in case F.I.R No, 331 of 2012 and his arrest was deferred and thereafter on the same day, he was shown arrested in case F.I,R No, 94 of 2013; that the respondent was put to identification parade and later on he was identified by the complainant so no ground for bail is made out.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No, 1 states that respondent has falsely been involved; that brother of wife of respondent was murdered and in this respect case F.I.R No, 612 dated 23-5-2012 under sections 302/34 P.P.C, was registered at Police Station Factory Area Tehsil Ferozwala District Sheikhupura in which nephew of the respondent was shown as accused and due to that enmity the respondent was later on involved in, so many cases which includes the present case.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record.
5. The respondent No, 1 was allowed bail by this court vide Criminal Miscellaneous No, 11492-B/2013 vide order dated 22-10-2013 mainly on the ground that as per prosecution version of case F.I.R No,94 of 2013 the respondent was arrested in case F.I.R No, 331 of 2012 and during interrogation of the said case he admitted the occurrence of this case F.I.R No, 94 of 2013 but the police officer and even the learned public prosecutor informed the court that respondent was shown arrested in the record of case F.I.R No, 94 of 2013 on 19-6-2013 whereas the record of case F.I.R No, 331 of 2012 indicates that respondent was arrested in that case on 1-7-2013 i,e, much later than he was shown arrested in case F.I.R No, 94 of 2013 so such circumstance was contrary to the version of the prosecution in case F.I.R No, 94 of 2013 so while considering the case that of further inquiry, the respondent was allowed bail. Now the learned law officer after going through the record of case F.I.R No, 331 of 2012 states that the respondent was arrested in the said case but his arrest was deferred and during investigation he admitted the occurrence of case F.I.R No, 94 of 2013 and this is duly mentioned in case diaries of case F.I.R No, 331 of 2012. He was sent to judicial lock up and his arrest was shown in case F.I.R No, 94 of 2013 on 19-6-2013. Later on the respondent was put to identification parade where he was duly identified by the complainant and other witnesses of case F.I.R No,94 of 2013 on 24-6-2013. After the interrogation in the said case, the respondent was shown arrested in case F.I.R No, 331 of 2012 on 1-7-2013 and because of this situation, the arrest of the respondent in case F.I.R No, 94 of 2013 was shown on 19-6-2013 and arrest of the respondent in case F.I.R No, 331 of 2012 was shown on 1-7-2013 although he was apprehended earlier in case F.I.R No, 331 of 2012. In the circumstance, the record rather explains the whole situation regarding arrest of the respondent in both the cases. Besides this ground, the respondent has got no other ground to entitle him to be released on bail. The case was registered against unknown persons and in the occurrence statedly gold ornaments and other articles were stolen and complainant and other witnesses were detained for quite some time. Later on the respondent was put to identification parade where he was duly identified by the complainant and other witnesses and during investigation, he got recovered gold ornaments which were later on identified by the witnesses to be the stolen property of the occurrence. No reason for the complainant and for other witnesses to falsely implicate the respondent in this case has been brought on record. So in absence of any other ground, I do not think that respondent is entitled to bail in this matter. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the order of Akbar Shah (respondent) dated 22-10-2013 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 11492-B/2013 in respect of case F.I.R. No, 94 dated 14-3-2013 under sections 395/397/411 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar Muridkey District Sheikhupura is hereby recalled. He be taken in custody and be kept in judicial lock up to face trial. Anyhow, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and see that the trial is concluded within four months from the receipt of this order.
Bail cancelled.