MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Ilyas, who was accused in a case registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving an armed robbery at a business premises. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary material available against him. The prosecution alleged that three unidentified armed individuals robbed a shop of a significant sum of money and subsequently fled. The petitioner was arrested in connection with a separate case involving illicit arms before being implicated in the present matter. Upon review, the Court observed that the complainant was never subjected to an identification parade, and the identification provided by a prosecution witness was deemed inconsequential as it failed to specify the petitioner's role in the crime. Finding no other evidence linking the petitioner to the occurrence and noting the absence of prior criminal involvement, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, emphasizing the lack of incriminating material connecting the accused to the alleged offense.
- Does the failure to subject a complainant to an identification parade weaken the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
- Is an identification made by a witness without specifying the role of the accused sufficient to deny bail?
- Can a petitioner be granted bail when there is no other evidence connecting them to the alleged occurrence?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991
ORDER
Muhammad Ilyas petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in a case under section 392, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhang, on 28‑4‑2001, vide F. I. R. No. 197 of 2001.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28‑4‑2001 at 7‑00 p.m., Hafiz Muhammad Khalid (complainant) and his two brothers, who run their business as wholesale Kiryana merchant, were busy in making bundles of the currency notes, when three unidentified persons carrying fire‑arms with them suddenly entered into the shop and took away a sum of Rs.900,000 on pistol point and decamped. While leaving the market, they took away a sum of Rs.8,000 from another shopkeeper and then snatched a motorcycle. The culprits disappeared after leaving the motorcycle in a street. Hafiz Muhammad, Khalid (complainant) suspected Wali Khan and one Tasawwar.
3. It is argued that the petitioner was, in fact; taken into custody by the police on 16‑9‑2001 in another case F.I.R. No.426 under section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms, 1991. On the next day, he was taken into custody in this case and sent to judicial lock7up, where the identification parade was held on 16‑10‑2001. It is submitted that Muhammad Khalid (complainant) was not put to identification test, while the two P.Ws. except Muhammad Ramzan could not identify the petitioner.
4. I have considered the arguments and have perused the record. Muhammad Khalid (complainant) was not asked to identify the accused. The identification made by Muhammad Ramzan without specifying the role of the accused is of no consequence. There is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. There is also nothing on the record to show the previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate.
H.B.T./M-2423/L Bail granted.