KHALIL AHMAD vs The STATE and another
This criminal petition arises out of an application for post-arrest bail filed by Khalil Ahmad in relation to case F.I.R. No. 176 dated 18-6-2013 registered under sections 394 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar Alipur, District Muzaffargarh. The core legal question pertained to whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering that he was not nominated in the initial F.I.R., was implicated through a belated supplementary statement without a disclosed source of information, and was never subjected to an identification parade despite being an unknown accused. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the case against the petitioner fell within the purview of further inquiry under the law, primarily due to the absence of an identification parade and the reliance on a doubtful supplementary statement. The key principle laid down is that in cases involving unknown accused, investigating officers must arrange an identification parade, and failure to do so, coupled with reliance on unsubstantiated supplementary statements, brings the prosecution case within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused not nominated in the F.I.R. and implicated through a supplementary statement without a disclosed source of information is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Is an identification parade mandatory when the accused is unknown to the victim in cases of dacoity?
- Does the failure of the investigating officer to hold an identification parade bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SIKANDAR ZULQARNAIN SALEEM, J.---By means of the instant petition, Khalil Ahmad, petitioner seeks for his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,176, dated 18-6-2013, offences under sections 394/411, P.P.C, lodged at Police Station Sadar Alipur, District Muzaffargarh.
2. As per prosecution story, the allegation against the petitioner/ accused is that he along with his co-accused while armed with deadly weapons committed dacoity and deprived the complainant and other P. Ws. From valuable things including motorcycle, etc and also caused injuries to the complainant and his son.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. Record indicates that the petitioner has been arraigned in this case on the strength of supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant on 26-6-2013 wherein he has not disclosed the source of information regarding the involvement of petitioner in the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is behind the bars since 4-9- 2013 without any progress in the trial. Petitioner has never been subjected to any test of identification parade though in such like cases accused are not known to the victims who are often implicated in the case of dacoity through supplementary statement by the victims afterwards having some knowledge and information from the reliable sources and through' collection of evidence of their own or on the asking of the police who in order to make the case convenient for themselves. The petitioner was not put to identification test which was necessary in this case. In the case of "Walayat v. The State" reported as (PLD 2008 Lahore 470), it was held that the Investigating Officer of such like nature cases must put the accused to identification parade and shall also identify the recovered articles from the owners but the same is lacking in this case. The relevant portion of the above mentioned judgment is reproduced here under:-- "6. It has become a general tendency in Punjab that in cases of unknown accused the Investigating Officer intentionally avoid to get arranged the identification parade after their arrest. They had made it routine to record supplementary statements of the eye-witnesses containing the fact that they had come to know from reliable source that the persons mentioned in their statements are their accused. They do not mention the source of said information on the basis of these baseless statements they effect the arrest of the accused persons considering the above mentioned statements as substitution of valuable evidence of identification parade, which is factually incorrect. After recoveries they send the accused to judicial lock up. Even the legal source of converting these recoveries to stolen property is being ignored, which is the height of the negligence of duty on the part of the Investigating Officer.
7. The cases of Qatl-i-Amd, robbery and dacoity are being spoiled by adopting the above stated mode and the habitual dacoity or robbers are being left off. It is a serious affair. The senior officer of the police department are keeping their eyes shut over this serious matter. The prosecution branch is also silent on this serious matter."
5. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that case against the petitioner falls within the domain of further inquiry and reasonable grounds do not exist to believe that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence.
6. Hence, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000 (Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- NABEEL and another vs The STATE and others 2015 P Cr. L J 1364