GHULAM MUSTAFA vs STATE, etc
The petitioner Ghulam Mustafa sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 166 dated 03.4.2016 under Sections 392, 397, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Yousaf Wala, District Sahiwal. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delayed FIR, lack of nomination in the crime report, delayed test identification parade, and absence of a memo of identification regarding recovered items. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting an unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR, a twenty-six-day delay in holding the test identification parade, and the completion of investigation rendering further detention unnecessary. The court accepted the bail application and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down principles regarding the relevance of delayed identification parades and further inquiry in bail matters.
- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the test identification parade justifies granting post-arrest bail?
- Does the recovery of robbed items without a memo of identification affect the case for bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the pendency of other criminal cases a bar to granting bail in the matter currently before the court?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Ghulam Mustafa, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 166 dated 03.4.2016 under Sections 392, 397, 411, PPC registered at Police Station Yousaf Wala, District Sahiwal.
2. 2.In this case, the complainant reported the commission of robbery against unknown accused.
3. Later on, the petitioner was arrested in this case.
3. Having heard the arguments addressed at the bar and after perusing the record, it was noticed that there was unexplained delay of about two days in lodging the FIR The petitioner was not nominated 1 in the crime report. He was arrested in case FIR No. 367 dated 28.5.2016 under Sections 392, 397, PPC and consequent to a disclosure made by his co-accused was arrested in this case. The test identification parade was held after about twenty six days of his arrest. Ref: "/mran v. The State" (2011 YLR 1944) and "Rizwan Zafar v. The State" (2013 Cr:LJ 220).
4. During the investigation, he got recovered the robbed items but no memo. of identification was prepared by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner is involved in a few cases of similar nature but this Court is only seized of the present bail application filed by the accused and the embargo of those cases was not relevant for the decision of the instant petition Ref: Qurban Ali v. The State and others" (2017 SCM R 279). The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his- detention would not serve any purpose to the prosecution, in particular, when the investigation is complete.
5. The case of the petitioner needs thorough order within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. He has made out a case for his enlargement on bail.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like