UMAIR ASHRAF Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Umair Ashraf, who was charged under sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a dacoity case. 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 failure to record the statement of the crucial eye-witness. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's case against him required further inquiry. The Court emphasized that the initial FIR described the assailants as unknown, yet no identification parade was conducted, and the complainant's subsequent nomination of the petitioner lacked a disclosed source. Furthermore, the failure of the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the watchman, who was the primary eye-witness, and the lack of identification procedures for the recovered goods, created significant doubt. Consequently, the Court granted the bail, noting the petitioner's lack of a prior criminal record and the evidentiary weaknesses present.
- Does the failure to conduct an identification parade in a case involving unknown assailants entitle an accused to bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
- Is the nomination of an accused in a supplementary statement without a disclosed source sufficient to deny bail?
- Does the failure of the Investigating Officer to record the statement of a key eye-witness constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.--- Umair Ashraf petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 223 dated 1-4-2013 registered under sections 395/412, P.P.C. at Police Station Sabzi Mandi District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R. is that at 10-15 p.m. unknown persons while armed with firearm weapons came into Godown of the complainant and on gun point obtained the keys of Godown from Watchman and took away 875 bags of plastic granules (Dana) valuing Rs.36,00,000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the assailants were unknown and in that eventuality, the identification parade was essential; that on 31-5-2013, the petitioner was taken into custody by the police and kept the petitioner in illegal confinement; that although, it was shown that on 28-6-2013, the petitioner got recovered 198 bags of plastic granules but there is no description of the said bags in the F.I.R. nor the complainant identified the same during the investigation; that the petitioner has no previous criminal record and after the arrest of the petitioner, another case F.I.R. No. 270 of 2013 was registered against the petitioner in which he has been bailed out.
4. On the other hand, learned DDPP for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application while arguing that petitioner was involved in first supplementary statement of the complainant and in the second supplementary statement, six other accused have been involved by the complainant; that during investigation, 198 bags of plastic granules were recovered on the pointation of the petitioner.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, in the F.I.R., the assailants were shown to be unknown. While making the supplementary statement on 31-5-2013, the complainant although nominated the petitioner but did not give any source and simply mentioned that he came to know about the involvement of the petitioner. No identification parade was conducted in this case. The prosecution is unable to explain as to why the identification parade was exempted in this case. On the other hand, the claim of the complainant is that the petitioner was amongst of those persons who committed dacoity but his claim is without any source. On the other hand, the police came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty to the extent of purchasing of said plastic granules (Dana) from the other accused persons.
In the F.I.R., it is specifically mentioned that the unknown dacoits snatched the keys of Godown from Mahabat Khan Watchman. Surprisingly, in this case, till today, the statement of said Watchman has not been recorded by the I.O. The statement of sole eye-witness has not been recorded by the I.O. in this case.
In the F.I.R. or any subsequent investigation, the description of the bags of plastic Dana/granules has not been mentioned. After the alleged recovery of 198 bags from the petitioner, no identification memo was prepared nor those were shown to the complainant for identification purpose. The evidentiary value of the said recovery will be appreciated by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. Presently, due to the above mentioned reasons, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars and prior to this occurrence, he has no previous criminal record. Although, subsequent to this case, he was involved in case F.I.R. No. 270 of 2013 but his bail application was allowed by the learned trial Court.
7. Consequently, this petition is allowed and Umair Ashraf petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rs. Two lacs only) with Two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
HBT/U-8/L Bail granted.