WAHEED ARSHAD vs STATE, etc.
This criminal petition seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Waheed Arshad, who was implicated in a case registered under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, concerning the alleged abduction of Waqar Haider. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his implication and the investigation's progress. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained 33-hour delay, and the petitioner was implicated only through a supplementary statement recorded 20 days after the occurrence. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of an identification parade, despite the petitioner not being previously acquainted with the abductee, and the lack of incriminating evidence recovered during the petitioner's physical remand. Holding that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry, the Court granted the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where there is a significant delay in the FIR, a lack of identification parade for an unknown accused, and no incriminating evidence recovered during remand, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does the absence of an identification parade for an accused who is not acquainted with the abductee constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the prosecution fails to recover incriminating evidence during physical remand?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
ORDER
' Through this petition, Waheed Arshad petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in a case beiring FIR No. 105/2015, dated 7.4.2015 under Section 365, PPC read with Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Sheikh Faazil, District Vehari for abduction of Waqar Haider, maternal cousin of the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of 33 hours in lodging the FIR and the petitioner was not named in the FIR and he has been involved through supplementary statement which was recorded by the police after 20 days of the alleged occurrence; that no identification parade was held in this case.
3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General opposed the petition and argued that there is no mala fide or of the complainant or the police to falsely involve the petitioner in this case.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The record shows that the case was got registered after the delay of 33 hours without any plausible explanation. After 20 days of the registration of the case, the abductee himself appeared before the police and got recorded his statement in which he involved Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Javaid and Muhammad Shahid co-accused for his abduction while the petitioner has been implicated by assigning the role of keeping him detained. No evidence except the oral assertion of PWs regarding the demand of ransom is available on record. The petitioner remained on physical remand with the investigation agency but no incriminating evidence against him could be brought on record. The petitioner who, as per prosecution case was not acquainted with the abductee has not been put to the test of identification parade during the investigation. In this view of the matter the case of the petitioner definitely requires further inquiry. After completion of investigation the petitioner has been sent to jail and no more required for investigation purpose. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.
This being so, the petition in hand is allowed and Waheed Arshad petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.