MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus State
This matter concerns a bail application filed by Muhammad Sadiq and two others seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving sixteen accused persons. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary challenges presented. The court observed that while the applicant Muhammad Sadiq was assigned the role of instigation, which requires positive proof at trial, the other two applicants were not named in the First Information Report and were only implicated following an identification parade conducted seven days after their arrest. Furthermore, the court noted that despite being the sons of the primary accused, these two applicants were not identified by the complainant. Holding that the case against the applicants required further inquiry, the court granted the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case relies on identification parades conducted after a significant delay and the specific roles of the accused remain subject to evidentiary proof at trial, the accused are entitled to the concession of bail pending further inquiry.
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the FIR, combined with a delayed identification parade, constitute grounds for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
- Is an allegation of instigation sufficient to deny bail without positive evidence at the trial stage?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to controvert the defense's position regarding the lack of identification of the accused?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J .---The bail is pressed on the ground that the role assigned to the applicant Muhammad Sadiq is only that of instigation whereas applicants Abdul Khaliq and Abdul. Sattar are not named in the F.I.R. though the F.I.R. contains the names of as many as sixteen accused persons.
2. Learned A.A.-G. has though opposed the grant of bail but has not been able to controvert the above position.
3. The contentions raised have been considered and the material placed on the record has been perused.
4. In the F.I.R. sixteen persons have been nominated but the names of applicants Nos.2 and 3 do not transpire therein. They have been implicated subsequently on the basis of identification parade which is said to have taken place after seven days of their arrest. The role assigned to applicant Muhammad Sadiq is that of instigation, which is required to be proved through positive evidence at the trial. Admittedly the applicants Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of applicant No.1 Muhammad Sadiq yet they could not be identified by the complainant. The case of the applicants in the circumstances calls for further inquiry entitling them to the concession of bail.
5. Applicants are accordingly directed to be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One Lac) each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. H.B.T./M-129/K Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- Mazhar Iqbal vs The State and another 2022 MLD 752