ZAHID IQBAL Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Zahid Iqbal, who was accused in an FIR registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a robbery incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the absence of his name in the FIR, the lack of a test identification parade, and the insufficiency of the evidence recovered from his possession. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution failed to conduct a test identification parade, which constituted a major flaw in the case. Furthermore, the court observed that the recovery of telephone cards was insufficient to link the petitioner to the crime, and no looted money was recovered from him. Consequently, the court granted bail, invoking the principle that where the prosecution's case against an accused requires further inquiry, bail should be granted, particularly when the accused has no prior criminal record.
- Does the failure to conduct a test identification parade constitute a significant flaw in the prosecution's case justifying the grant of bail?
- Is the recovery of minor items, such as telephone cards, sufficient to link an accused to a robbery charge in the absence of other evidence?
- When does a case fall within the purview of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
With regard to an occurrence, which allegedly took place on 19-8-2000 at about 12-30 p.m. in the office of Hamid Rashid, situate in 51/B-3, Gulberg, Lahore, and in which four unknown persons, whose height, colour, physique has been furnished by the complainant in the F.I.R. entered the said office and forcibly took away wrist-watches, telephone cards, photographs, examination slips and a huge amount to the tune of Rs.1,82,365, Crime Report No.207, under section 392, P.P.C. was registered on the same day at his instance.
2. The petitioner could be arrested by the police on 16-4-2001 and during the course of investigation eight telephone cards were recovered from his possession. He made an application for grant of post-arrest bail before learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, which came up for tearing before a learned Additional Sessions, Judge on 9-6-2001, who after taking everything into his full consideration, dismissed his petition on the basis of variety of reason contained in the order itself. Now by filing the instant petition, he has approached this Court seeking same relief.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that name of the petitioner did not figure in the first information report and that the case was false. He next submits that no identification parade was organized or held in the jail to fix up his identity as a culprit involved in the case and that the recovery of eight telephone cards was hardly sufficient to link him with the crime in question.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State after consultation of the investigation record submits that no recovery of the looted amount was effected from his possession and for that reason allegations brought against the accused fall within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. being that of further inquiry. He does not oppose grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have consciously heard and soberly considered arguments addressed by learned counsel for both the sides. Admittedly name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the first information report. He was not subjected to a test identification parade by the prosecution, which, of course, is to be treated as a major flaw in the case. Recovery of incriminating articles could not be effected from his possession and the mere recovery of telephone cards is hardly sufficient to label him as an accused in the case. The petitioner does not have a chequered record. He has not been involved in such-like cases earlier.
6. Resultantly, I accept this application and direct that the petitioner be released from custody subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. The petitioner shall appear regularly on all dates of hearing before the trial Court during trial proceedings and in case he fails to comply with this direction, then the trial Court would be at liberty to cancel his bail and commit him to custody till conclusion of his trial.
M. U. K./Z-167/L Bail granted.