Arshad Iqbal vs The State and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the Petitioner in connection with FIR No. 786/24, involving offences under Sections 302, 365, 381-A, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the Petitioner, who was not nominated in the FIR and against whom no identification parade was conducted, was entitled to the concession of bail despite the offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the Petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage and that implicating an accused through a supplementary statement without a disclosed source is legally deprecated. The Court affirmed the principle that even in cases falling within the prohibitory clause, bail may be granted if the case against the accused requires further inquiry into their guilt, particularly when the accused is not named in the FIR and no identification parade has occurred.
- Does the mere fact that an offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically disentitle an accused from the grant of bail?
- Is it permissible for a court to conduct a deeper appreciation of facts at the bail stage?
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of a supplementary statement when they were not named in the initial FIR and no identification parade was held?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Through the instant Bail Petition the Petitioner is seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 786/24 dated 18.10.2024 for the offences under Sections 302, 365, 381-A and 411, PPC registered with Police Station Sangjani, Islamabad.
2. The brief facts as per the contents of the F.I.R. are that on 18.10.2024, the Complainant reported to the local police that his white-colored 10-wheeler Dumper, bearing Registration No. 1736-E, Engine No. JO8CVA13416, Chassis No. 21412, model 1985, had been stolen by 3 to 4 unknown persons. The said Dumper was taken along with the Conductor, Asad, who was sleeping inside the Dumper at the time of the occurrence. The Complainant stated in the FIR that he had already informed the police about the incident on 15 prior to the official report. Later, the dead body of the Conductor, Asad, was found in the Hazro area of Attock.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely involved in the instant case; that the Petitioner is not nominated in the FIR; that the story narrated in the FIR is false, frivolous and concocted one; that there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record against the Petitioner; that the Complainant is not an eye witness of the occurrence and the case against the Petitioner requires further probe into the guilt of the Petitioner; that the investigation is complete and the Petitioner is no more required for investigation; that the Petitioner belongs to a respectable family and is previously non-convict; and that the Petitioner is ready to submit solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Court, if released on bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor ("ADPP") stated that there is sufficient evidence available against the Petitioner to connect him with the commission of heinous offence which falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned ADPP and have also perused the record.
6. It is trite law that deeper appreciation of facts is not permissible at the bail stage. The Petitioner has not been named in the FIR. It is well settled law that implicating a person through supplementary statement without disclosing source of information is deprecated. No identification parade has been conducted and as such the case against the Petitioner is one of further inquiry.
7. In the case of Muhammad Ashraf vs. State, 2020 SCMR 2105 involving offence under Section 302, PPC, the Honorable Supreme Court granted the petitioner bail inter alia, on the ground that he was not nominated in the FIR despite the fact that he was identified in an identification parade.
8. It is now well settled that mere involvement of accused in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., does not disentitle him from grant of bail if the matter requires further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case Shoukat Ilahi versus Javed Iqbal and others, 2010 SCMR 966 while explaining grounds for grant of bail in cases falling within the prohibitory clause has held that bail to an accused can be granted if the establishment of the conviction requires further inquiry.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Petitioner has successfully made out a prima facie case for his release on bail. Consequently, the instant bail application is allowed and the Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with one surety to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The Petitioner may submit surety in cash.
10. Needless to mention that the above observations are tentative in nature, which shall in no way prejudice the Trial Court. It is made clear that if the concession of bail is misused by the Petitioner or any delay in conclusion of trial is caused by him or anyone else acting on his behalf, the Trial Court shall be competent to recall the bail granted, after hearing the parties, strictly in accordance with the law.