MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE
This judgment disposes of two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking post-arrest bail arising out of F.I.R. No. 84 of 2003 registered at Police Station Shahpur Saddar, Sargodha. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners are entitled to bail considering their roles, supplementary statements, identification parades, and the rule of consistency with co-accused who were already granted bail. The court held that petitioner Muhammad Ashraf was not nominated in the FIR, was not identified in an identification parade, and his case stood on par with co-accused who had already been released on bail, thus entitling him to bail under the principle of consistency. However, petitioner Muhammad Rizwan Jamil was duly identified during the identification parade as one of the culprits, making him disentitled to bail at this stage despite alleged infirmities. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted based on the rule of consistency when a petitioner's case is identical to co-accused already granted bail, whereas positive identification in an identification parade ordinarily precludes bail for non-bailable offences at the pre-trial stage.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when co-accused in a similar position have already been granted bail?
- Does identification of an accused during an identification parade disentitle them to bail at the pre-trial stage?
- What is the evidentiary value of an accused being named only in a belated supplementary statement?
ORDER
This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.384/B of 2004 titled Muhammad Ashraf v. The State and also Criminal Miscellaneous No.984/B of 2003 titled Muhammad Rizwan Jamil v. The State, both of which are applications for bail after arrest and have arisen out of F.I.R. No. 84 of 2003 registered on 8-5-2003 in Police Station Shahpur Saddar, Sargodha.
2. The F.I.R. was lodged by one Muhammad Pervaiz lqbal regarding an occurrence which had taken place on 8-5-2003 at 8-30 p.m. As regards Muhammad Ashraf petitioner, it has been argued that he is not nominated in any F.I.R. and that he was not identified in any identification parade. His learned counsel has contended that Muhammad Ashraf was named only in the supplementary statement of the complainant and which has no legal batis. He has argued that no independent witness from the locality in question was associated with the recovery, if any and that there is no allegation against him of having participated in the occurrence and that the only allegation against him is that the iron Jangla of the Toyota Hilex which was snatched by the unknown culprits was recovered from him. He has submitted that Ghulam Hasnain Shah whose case was at par with the petitioner was granted bail on 17-12-2003 while his co-accused Liaquat Hayat and Sikandar Hayat were granted post-arrest bail by this Court. He has submitted that the investigation is complete and nothing is now to be recovered from the petitioner.
3. Concerning Muhammad Rizwan Jamil petitioner, it has been argued that he was named in the supplementary statement of the complainant but the complainant did not disclose the source from which he had come to know about the name of the petitioner. In his supplementary statement recorded on 10-5-2003 the complainant named Zulfiqar, Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Gulzar as accused persons but later on he introduced the present petitioner alongwith other 10 persons as the accused on 30-8-2003 and the said fact is enough to make it a case of further inquiry. He has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 10-9-2003 and was sent to the judicial lock-up and the belated identification parade had no importance in the eye of law. He has argued that the case of the petitioner is at par with the co-accused who have already been granted bail and hence the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession.
4. Both the bail applications have been resisted by the learned counsel for the State.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides.
6. So far as Muhammad Rizwan Jamil petitioner is concerned, he was identified during the identification parade. So far as the alleged infirmities of the identification parade are concerned, the same may be of no avail to the petitioner during the trial. As he was identified by the P.Ws. during the course of identification parade as one of the culprits, Muhammad Rizwan Jamil petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage.
7. So far as Muhammad Ashraf petitioner is concerned, the prosecution does not claim to have established his identification during the course of any identification parade. Only an iron Jangla of the Toyota Van in question appears to have been recovered from him. His case appears to be at par with that of Ghulam Husnain Shah, Liaquat Hayat and Sikandar Hayat, co-accused who have already been granted bail in this case. Under the circumstances, Muhammad Ashraf petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail on the basis of principle of consistency.
8. In view of what has been mentioned above, the bail application of Muhammad Ashraf petitioner is accepted and he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the bail application of Muhammad Rizwan Jamil petitioner is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-327/L Order accordingly.