MUHAMMAD ABID vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Abid seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 609 dated 19.12.2014 registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Litton, Lahore, concerning an offense of robbery. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of an identification parade despite the complainant's earlier assertion, the vague nature of the subsequent nomination via a supplementary statement, and the reliance on a disclosure statement made in a separate case. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of an identification parade, the unexplained supplementary statement without a stated source of information, and the insufficiency of a disclosure statement made in another case bring the matter within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the principle that a disclosure statement made in a separate criminal case is insufficient by itself to disentitle an accused person to bail, and the failure to hold an identification parade where initially claimed creates reasonable grounds for further inquiry.
- Whether the failure to hold an identification parade despite the complainant's claim makes a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a disclosure statement made during the investigation of another case sufficient to disentitle an accused person from receiving post-arrest bail?
- Whether an unexplained supplementary statement lacking the source of information warrants the grant of bail to the accused?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Muhammad Abid, seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 609 dated 19.12.2014 u/S. 392, PPC, registered at Police Station Litton, Lahore.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case mentioned in the FIR is that two unknown persons committed robbery at the store of complainant and snatched Rs.15.000/- and five mobile phones. In the FIR, specific description has been given and complainant claimed that he can identify the said robbers.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. While lodging FIR, complainant claimed that he can identify the robbers, but surprisingly, in this case no identification parade was arranged for. The learned Prosecutor is unable to explain as to why the identification parade was exempted, however, according to him petitioner was nominated subsequently on 08. 01. 2015 through a supplementary statement. While going through the said supplementary statement, it revealed that complainant did not describe the source through which he came to know about the involvement of petitioner. The record further reveals that petitioner made disclosure during investigation of case FIR No. 530 of 2014 and thereafter he was nominated by the complainant through supplementary statement. The disclosure in other case by itself is not sufficient to dis entitle him for the concession of bail. So far recovery of cash Rs. 10,000/- and mobile phone is concerned, the same will be appreciated by the trial Court after recording evidence, but presently, due to above-mentioned reasons, case of petitioner calls for further inquiry, falling under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars and his person is no more required by the police for the purpose of investigation.
5. Consequently, this petition is hereby allowed and petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Two Lac Rupees) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.