MUHAMMAD KHALID Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Khalid, in connection with FIR No. 75 registered under sections 392/114, 411, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a seven-day delay, the occurrence took place after dark, and the culprits remained unidentified at the scene. Crucially, no test identification parade was conducted, and recovered items were not identified by the complainant. Furthermore, the co-accused who implicated the petitioner had already been granted bail, and the petitioner had no prior criminal record. The Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry into his guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, establishing the principle that where identification evidence is absent and co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail, the accused is entitled to bail pending trial.
- Whether the absence of a test identification parade constitutes grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused with a similar role entitle the petitioner to the rule of consistency in bail matters?
- Is a delay of seven days in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for determining entitlement to post-arrest bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Muhammad Khalid petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.75 registered at Police Station Jhang Bazar, Faisalabad on 3-3-2004 for offences under sections 392/114, P.P.C. During the investigation sections 411 and 412, P.P.C. had statedly been added to the F.I.R.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the occurrence in this case had taken place after dark and the F.I.R. in respect of the same had been lodged with a delay of seven days. According to the F.I.R. the culprits perpetrating the alleged offences had remained unidentified at the spot and their names had been divulged before the complainant by one Muhammad Siddique co-accused who had informed the complainant that the petitioner was also one of the persons who had committed the alleged offences. It is not disputed that no test identification parade has been held in this case so as to positively incriminate the petitioner. During the investigation a C.D. deck and a pistol had allegedly been recovered from the petitioner's possession. However, the recovered C.D. deck had never been identified by the complainant or the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. as part of the stolen property and no memorandum of `4 identification of the recovered C.D. deck is available on the record of investigation. There is nothing available on the record to connect the pistol allegedly recovered from the petitioner's possession with the offences in issue. It may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has been implicated in this case through a disclosure allegedly made by Muhammad Siddique co-accused but the said Muhammad Siddique co-accused has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. Another co-accused of the petitioner namely Iftikhar whose role in the main occurrence was somewhat similar to that of the present petitioner has also been admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned Area Magistrate. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in Jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. The learned counsel for the State and the police officer present with the record have categorically stated that the petitioner has no credentials or antecedents of a dacoit or a robber to his discredit as no other case of similar nature stands registered against him at the relevant Police Station.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1080/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.