GHULAM ABBAS SHAH Versus State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 968 of 2004, registered under Sections 394 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station South Cantt., Lahore. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated based on mere suspicion, that no identification parade was conducted, that the recovery was planted, and that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. undermined the prosecution's case. He further argued that even if the prosecution's allegations were accepted, the offense would only fall under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a maximum sentence of three years. The State opposed the bail application. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that although the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., injured witnesses had specifically identified him in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments given the direct testimony of the injured witnesses, the Court dismissed the bail application.
- Does the absence of a name in an F.I.R. automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail when injured witnesses have identified the accused in subsequent statements?
- Can bail be refused where injured witnesses have provided statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicating the accused?
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UZ-ZAMAN, J.--- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.968 of 2004, dated 25-12-2004 registered under sections 394/411, P.P.C. at Police Station, South Cantt., Lahore on the grounds that he had been falsely involved in this case on the .mere suspicion, he was never put to the test of identification parade and that during the investigation fake recovery was planted on him. If the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is even then only offence under section 411, P.P.C. is attracted which is punishable for three years' R.I. Further submits that there was a delay of sixteen hours in lodging the F.I.R. Conversely, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application.
2. After going through the record, I have observed that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but on the same day injured witness namely Javaid Sehgul, Mst. Tareen Sehgul and Security Guard namely Zoqa Khan while making statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. had specifically, stated that it was the petitioner who along with driver while breaking open the door entered into the house caused injures to them and thereafter took away their .belonging.
In the light of the statements of injured witnesses who have no axe to grind against the petitioner, no ground for bail is made out. Dismissed.
H.B.T./G-19/L Bail refused.