KHALID MAHMOOD Versus State
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Khalid Mahmood in respect of F.I.R. No. 82 of 2005 registered under sections 356, 392, 395, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ghulam Muhammadabad. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his implication through a supplementary statement, subsequent identification in an identification parade, and recovery of looted money, notwithstanding a purported compromise with the complainant and the passage of time in custody. The Lahore High Court held that prima facie there was ample evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged offences, which fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is identified during an identification parade and incriminating recoveries are effected during investigation, bail will be refused for offences falling within the prohibitory clause, regardless of a compromise with the complainant.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is implicated through a supplementary statement and subsequently identified during an identification parade?
- Does a compromise between the complainant and the accused warrant the grant of bail in offences falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Is the recovery of looted money during investigation sufficient to connect an accused to an offence for the purpose of bail refusal?
- Section 356, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UZ-ZAMAN, J. ---Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.82 of 2005 dated 9-2-2005 for the offence under sections 356/392/ 395/412, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Ghulam Muhammadabad, on the grounds that complainant of this case has compromised with the petitioner, looted money has already been returned to him and that he is no more interested in the prosecution of this case. It is further submitted that petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months and there is no progress in this trial. Further submits that during the investigation fake recovery was planted upon the petitioner just to strengthen the prosecution case. It is lastly argued that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant which was brought on record after one month of the occurrence. Conversely counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have observed that though petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but he was involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant. Though this piece of evidence has got no legal sanctity but after his arrest petitioner was also put to the test of identification parade and he was identified by the witnesses as one of the accused persons. During the investigation looted money was also recovered from the petitioner. In this view of the matter, prima facie there is ample evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition having no merits stands dismissed.
H.B.T./K-39/L Bail granted.