Ahmed Saqib vs The State, etc
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Ahmed Saqib in connection with FIR No. 376 dated 23.6.2018 registered under sections 380, 457, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad, concerning the theft of mobile phones from a warehouse. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the delayed supplementary nomination, negative NADRA verification of CCTV footage, and the completion of the investigation. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The Court held that the delayed nomination through a supplementary statement without a disclosed source, coupled with a negative NADRA report regarding the CCTV footage and unverified identification, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, establishing that further incarceration of the accused would serve no useful purpose.
- Whether delay in lodging the FIR and subsequent delayed nomination through a supplementary statement warrants post-arrest bail?
- Does a negative NADRA report regarding CCTV footage identification create sufficient grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the investigation is complete and further incarceration serves no beneficial purpose for the prosecution?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD WAHEED KHAN, J.--- Through this petition the petitioner Ahmed Saqib seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 376 dated 23.6.2018 registered under sections 380, 457, 411, PPC at Police Station Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad.
2. Safdar Ali son of Abdul Majeed, Custom Inspector , Dry Port Faisalabad put the machinery of law in motion while alleging that on 21.6.2018 at about 11:00 hours, he found that 1661 mobile phone s were stolen from Warehouse, value of the mobile phones is mentioned as Rs.11,741,999/-. He also claimed that CCTV footage is also available.
Thereafter on 4.10.2018 the accused/petitioner alongwith others was nominated in the crime report through supplementary statement dated 4.10.2018 with the allegations that they have committed the theft of mobile phones of Warehouse.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it transpires that petitioner/accused is not named in the FIR with specific role rather it was lodged against unknown culprit s. The petitioner was nominated in the instant crime report alongwith 6 other persons by the complainant by making supplementary statement on 4.10.2018 without disclosing any source of information and that too after lapse of about four months of the occurrence. Even otherwise, the offence allegedly took place on 18.6.2018 and the matter was reported to the police on 23.6.2018 at about 5:40 p.m. with the delay of 5 days. The explanation of which has not been advanced by the complainant while lodging the FIR. Soon after the registration of FIR CCTV footage was handed over to the Investigating Officer, who also lifted finger prints from the place of occurrence and sent the same to the NADRA Headquarter Islamabad, wherein it is reported that finger prints as well as photographs duly prepared from. CCTV footage were not found matched in the data base of NADRA which means that the report submitted by the NADRA is negative in nature and the photographs are not identifiable. When this situation was confronted to the Investigating Officer present in Court, he states that the present petitioner and others were nominated by the complainant while recognizing them in the CCTV footage but conceded that no forensic or any laboratory report is available in this regard. The petitioner had been arrested in the instant case on 19.10.2018 and during the course of investigation 15 mobile phones and amount of crime proceed were allegedly got, recovered from his possession but the fact remains that recognition of the present petitioner alongwith others in CCTV footage is a big question mark on the veracity of stance of the complainant and specifically when negative report submitted by the NADRA Headquarter . 'Even otherwise, investigation has already been completed and further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any beneficial purpose for the prosecution.
5. For what has been discussed above, there exist sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the present petitioner is called for further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly , this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
5,00,000/- (rupees five lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.