MUHAMMAD FAROOQ Versus State
This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Farooq, who is accused in a case registered under sections 302, 394, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being identified in a supplementary statement and subsequently identified during an identification parade, notwithstanding his initial exclusion from the First Information Report and a police report declaring him innocent. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the identification parade, where the petitioner was successfully identified by prosecution witnesses, provided sufficient prima facie evidence to connect him to the commission of the offence. The Court further noted that the Judicial Magistrate had rightly disagreed with the police's discharge report, as it lacked cogent reasoning. The key principle laid down is that where there is sufficient incriminating material on record, such as successful identification in a parade, the mere absence of a name in the initial F.I.R. or a police finding of innocence does not automatically entitle an accused to bail.
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the initial F.I.R. entitle them to bail if they are subsequently identified in a supplementary statement?
- Is a police report declaring an accused innocent binding on a Judicial Magistrate when considering bail?
- Can successful identification in an identification parade constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Farooq petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.542 dated 2‑10‑2003 registered under sections 302/394/411, P.P.C. at Police Station Lundianwala, District Faisalabad on the grounds that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but was involved on the basis of supplementary statement. During the investigation nothing was recovered from the petitioner and he was declared innocent. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant and the State vehemently opposed the grant of bail.
2. Heard. File perused.
3. No doubt petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but on the same day complainant disclosed the identity of the petitioner through a supplementary statement. The petitioner after his arrest was put to the test of identification parade and was successfully identified by the prosecution witnesses. This piece of evidence prima facie is sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. Learned Judicial Magistrate had also not agreed with the discharge report of the police which was not based on any cogent reasons. In the light of data available on record connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence, I see no force in this petition and the same stands dismissed.
N.H.Q. /M‑882/L Bail refused.