SAJID SALEEM Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Sajid Saleem, in connection with F.I.R. No. 146 registered for offences under sections 302 and 393 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case, specifically the lack of an identification parade and the significant delay in recording witness statements. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the failure to conduct an identification parade despite the complainant's claim of identification, combined with the six-month delay in recording the statements of key witnesses, cast doubt on the prosecution's case at the pre-trial stage. Furthermore, the Court noted that the evidence regarding the pointation of the crime scene by the accused appeared prima facie inadmissible. Consequently, the Court determined that the allegations against the petitioner required further inquiry under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby satisfying the criteria for the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does the failure to conduct an identification parade in a case where the accused was previously unknown to witnesses constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a significant delay in recording witness statements justify the grant of bail to an accused?
- Is evidence regarding the pointation of a crime scene by an accused in custody prima facie admissible?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 393, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J. ---Sajid Saleem has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.146 registered at Police Station Kot Samabah on 20-4-2004 for offences under sections 302/393, P.P.C.
2. The relevant facts per F.I.R. are that at about 3-00 p.m. on 20-4-2002, Haji Bashir Ahmad, brother of the complainant, who was on a motor-cycle, was stopped by three persons. When Haji Bashir Ahmad stopped the motor-cycle, the three accused, who were not previously known to the complainant and the P.Ws. tried to take out the key of the motor-cycle. When Bashir Ahmad resisted, two of the accused, who were armed with pistols, fired at him. Thereafter the accused left the scene of occurrence. Haji Bashir Ahmad died on the spot. On 19-10-2004, supplementary statement of complainant and the statements of Imam Bakhsh and Lal Bakhsh, P.Ws. were recorded wherein it was stated that they had seen the three accused, including the petitioner, committing the murder of a motor-cycle rider; however, the P.Ws. were threatened by the accused to keep quiet, so they did not inform anyone about the occurrence. According to Imam Bakhsh and Lal Bakhsh, P.Ws. they had narrated the story to the complainant after arrest of the petitioner in some other case.
3. The petitioner, who was arrested in some other case, was formally arrested in the instant case and while in custody, he led the I.O., Muhammad Ibrahim complainant and Muhammad Ismail, P.W., to the place where the accused stopped the deceased and had tried to snatch his motor-cycle.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the case.
5. It has been noticed that though it was claimed in the F.I.R. that the complainant could identify the assailant yet no identification parade was held in the case; that the statements of Lal Bakhsh, Imam Bakhsh and the supplementary statements of complainant were recorded after six months of the, occurrence. The credibility of their statements would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of their statements on oath. As far as the evidence of pointation of the place where the deceased was stopped and where the accused had tried to snatch the motor-cycle is concerned, prima facie, the same is not admissible in evidence and that question, too, would be determined by the learned trial Court. In the above-noted circumstances, the allegations qua the petitioner need further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./S-97/L Bail granted.