MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused in an F.I.R. registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of his involvement, the identification evidence, and his criminal history. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that his case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court noted that the petitioner was not identified at the scene, the identification by witnesses was uncorroborated, and the prosecution's narrative regarding the complainant party's lack of resistance despite being armed was implausible. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that a person cannot be denied bail solely based on their criminal history or involvement in other cases if the specific case at hand lacks sufficient evidence. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the prosecution's case against the petitioner was not sufficiently strong to warrant continued incarceration pending trial.
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of a prior criminal record if the current case lacks sufficient evidence?
- Does the failure of an armed complainant party to resist an alleged robbery create doubt regarding the occurrence of the incident?
- Is identification by witnesses who claim to know the accused sufficient to deny bail when it lacks independent corroboration?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J .---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.89/07,dated 7-4-2007, registered under section 392, P.P.C. at police station Sabazpir District Sialkot.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his accomplices had committed dacoity and had snatched Rs.5,29,118 one Nokia Mobile Phone and one .30 bore pistol from the complainant party.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R., no active role has been attributed to him and he was involved in this case in the supplementary statement by the complainant. No source of identification was mentioned by the prosecution except for two persons who had deposed subsequently that they knew all the accused persons. He further submits that recovery of Rs.14,000 has been effected from the petitioner, that was too planted. He has referred to the case of two accused persons, who had also granted bail by the learned trial Court, having similar allegations, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the petitioner be also released on bail. He has relied upon Khalid Taqi v. The State 1999, PCr.LJ 271.
4. Learned D.P.G. opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that it is promptly lodged F.I.R. and two eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Sodagar and Majeed, had subsequently deposed before the police that they had identified the petitioner as well as his co-accused, who had committed the said offence. He further states that Rs.24,000 and one Nokia Mobile Phone were recovered from the petitioner. There are six criminal cases registered against the petitioner, who happens to be desperate hardened criminal. He has been held guilty in police investigation as well.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.-G. and have also perused the record. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. without any role. The petitioner was not identified by any one at the time .and place of occurrence, as no source of identification was mentioned in the supplementary statement as well. Merely relying on the statement of Sodagar and Majeed who had deposed that they had seen the accused persons which is not corroborated by any other independent evidence, cannot be relied upon.
6. There is another very strange aspect of the situation, which does not appeal to one's mind, rather creates doubt in one's mind regarding the occurrence that the accused persons had hauled up the complainant and his accomplices and snatched money, .30 bore pistol and one Nokia Mobile Phone from them, whereas the complainant party were also fully equipped and also carrying .30 bore pistol with them. Had there been any occurrence, there is no reason why the complainant party would not have resorted to self-defence and had opened firing on the accused persons as they were themselves fully equipped with arms and it is not believable that the complainant party having .30 bore pistol with them had not opened fire on the accused party when they are going to be looted by the accused persons.
7. As far as the argument of the learned D.P.G. regarding criminal history of the present petitioner is concerned, it may be mentioned here that a person cannot be sent behind the bars merely on the fact that he is criminal and is required in other criminal cases until and unless the case in which he is required is proved against him. In this context, ruling presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner (1999 PCr.LJ 271) shall fortify this observation.
8. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
Petition stands disposed of.
N.H.Q./M-171/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- KHAISTA MEER and another vs The STATE 2013 P Cr. L J 474