EDWARD NASEER vs The STATE and anothers
This matter involves three consolidated post-arrest bail petitions arising from FIR No. 392 registered under Sections 395, 324, 353, 186, 290, 291, 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the unnamed petitioners, identified through CCTV footage and subsequent identification, are entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of recoveries and evidence. The Lahore High Court held that except for one petitioner from whom a looted PDA device was recovered, the remaining petitioners made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that general recoveries of common-pattern sticks do not sufficiently connect accused persons to the crime, whereas incriminating recoveries like looted public property distinguish an accused's case and warrant the denial of bail.
- Whether unnamed accused persons arrested on the basis of CCTV footage are entitled to post-arrest bail when recoveries attributed to them consist only of common-pattern sticks?
- Does the recovery of looted property during physical custody distinguish an accused's case from co-accused to disentitle them from post-arrest bail?
- Whether a case falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when identification is subject to trial court evaluation after recording evidence?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 290, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 291, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This single order disposes of three post arrest bail petitions bearing Cr!. Misc. No,7200/B/2015 titled Edward Naseer v. The State and another, Cr!. Misc. No,7144/B/2015 titled Riaz Masih and 5 others v.
The State and another and Crl. Misc. No,7145/B/2015 titled Tariq and 3 others v. The State and another.
2. Through the afore-referred petitions, Edward Naseer, Riaz Masih, Nazir Masih, Tariq Masih, Arshad Masih, Asif Masih, Ishfaq Masih, Tariq, Naeem Bhatti, Imran and Yousaf Masih, the petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No,392 dated 15.03.2015 offences under Sections 395, 324, 353, 186, 290, 291, 427, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Read with Section 7 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, registered with Police Station Nishtar Colony, Lahore.
3. The brief prosecution story, according to the narration available in the crime report, is that on 15.03.2015 at about 12:00 noon, 500/600 persons while armed with blunt weapons blocked the main Ferozpur Road. When police party reached at the spot, these people started throwing stones upon them. The assailants caught hold of Muhammad Ashraf, SI and with an intent to set him on fire, sprinkled kerosene oil on him who was rescued by the other police officials. The assailants also caused damage to Metro Bus Station and the police vehicle.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. None of the petitioners has been specifically nominated in the FIR. Identification of the petitioner during test identification parade is to be looked in by the learned trial court after recording the evidence because of the fact that admittedly, petitioners were initially taken into custody by the police under Section 54, Cr.P.C. On the basis of CCTV Camera footage. Nothing has been recovered at the instance of petitioner Edward Naseer. The recoveries of sticks and clubs of common pattern only, at the instance of rest of the petitioners are prima facie, not sufficient to connect them, with the alleged offence. However, the case of Imran petitioner is on different footing from that of rest of the petitioners as to his extent the prosecution case finds corroboration from the recovery of a valuable PDA device of damaged Metro Bus Station, which was looted during the occurrence that has been got recovered by him during his physical custody with the Investigation Agency. This recovery of supra mentioned device at the instance of Imran petitioner, prima facie, connects him with the alleged offence and makes his case distinguishable from tliat of his co-accused. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that except Imran, petitioner in Crl. Misc. No,7145/B/2015, all other petitioners have made out their case one of further inquiry entitling them for the grant of post arrest bail under subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
For what has been discussed above, the afore-referred bail petitions to the extent of petitioners Edward Naseer, Riaz Masih, Nazir Masih, Tariq Masih, Arshad Masih, Asif Masih, Ishfaq Masih, Tariq, Naeem Bhatti and Yousaf Masih are accepted and they are admitted to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/-each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, whereas bail petition bearing Crl. Misc.
No,7145/B/2015 to the extent of Imran petitioner, is dismissed.