Muhammad Kashif vs State etc
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Kashif in connection with FIR No. 502 dated 07.10.2020 registered at Police Station Tibba Sultanpur, District Vehari, under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the unexplained delay in reporting the crime, the failure to conduct a test identification parade where the accused was initially unknown, and the completion of recovery rendering physical custody unnecessary. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, lack of a test identification parade for an unknown accused, non-requirement of further physical custody after recovery, and the right to a speedy trial without suffering pre-trial incarceration as a form of punishment constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail.
- Whether unexplained delay in reporting an offense justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is a test identification parade mandatory when an accused is not previously known to the complainant or witnesses?
- Does the completion of recovery from an accused obviate the need for further physical custody by the investigating agency?
- Whether continuous and indefinite detention of an accused without material progress in the trial amounts to advance punishment?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Kashif, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case registered vide, FIR No. 502 dated 07.10.2020 at- police station Tibba Sultanpur , District V ehari for of fences under Sections 392,41 1, PPC.
2. The complainant reported a robbery against unknown accused. 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 the occurrence took place on 02.10.2020 but the incident was reported with unexplain ed delay of about five days i.e. on 07.10.2020. The petitioner was never put to test identification parade by the investigating agency . In such like cases, the accused is not known to the complainant or the witnesses, holding of test identification parade could not be dispensed with because accused who had allegedly committed the robbery had been subsequently found in possession of robbed goods. Reliance in this context can be placed on "Farman Ali Versus The State" (1997 SCMR 971). During the investigation, the recovery stands effected from the petitioner and thus, his physical custody was not required by the investigating agency . The trial has not witnessed any material progress. It is settled by now that the speedy trial is the right of the accused and no body can be detained in jail by way of advance punishment. The petitioner has got no previous conviction at his credit. The continuous and indefinite detention of the petitioner would not serve any purpose to the prosecution. In the circumstances, I am inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner .
4. In view of the above, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.