JAVED IQBAL Versus State Rao Abdul Jabbar Khan , Amir Abdullah
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Javed Iqbal, in connection with F.I.R. No. 368 dated 9-11-2001, registered for offences including house trespass and robbery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the significant delay in the complainant's supplementary statement implicating him, the absence of a test identification parade, and the prolonged duration of the trial. The Court observed that the complainant had failed to name the perpetrators in the initial F.I.R. and only implicated the petitioner eleven months later without providing a clear basis. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer failed to conduct a test identification parade, rendering the petitioner's identity as a perpetrator a matter for further inquiry. Additionally, the trial had not concluded despite the petitioner's incarceration for over three years. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for bail, emphasizing the lack of identification evidence and the delay in trial proceedings. The petition was accepted, and the petitioner was granted bail subject to furnishing a bail bond.
- Does an unexplained delay of eleven months in naming an accused in a supplementary statement entitle the accused to bail?
- Is the failure of the Investigating Officer to conduct a test identification parade a ground for granting bail?
- Can prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of a trial serve as a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 459, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
M A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J .---laved Iqbal petitioner has prayed for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No. 368, dated 9-11-2001 registered at Police Khushab, District Khushab for offences under sections 459, 380, 394, 337A(ii), 337-L(2), 411, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution's case is that on 9-11-2001 at about 6-00 p.m. Haji Husnain Akhtar complainant was present in his house and his wife Mst. Ghulam Fatima was preparing meals when someone pushed call bell. The complainant opened the gate. Three unknown persons made their way into the house. The third one who was empty handed and wearing Shalwar and Qameez had muffled his face. The complainant was overpowered and taken into a room. Mst. Ghulam Fatima, the wife of the complainant, was also terrorized and brought into the room. The perpetrators got removed four bangles of gold, two rings, a locket and a pair of ear-rings of Mst. Ghulam Fatima. The complainant was also forced to hand over Saudi Riyals. The accused then went away.
3. The complainant after more than 11 months of the occurrence made a supplementary statement on 19-10-2002 on the basis of which the petitioner was arrested on 30-10-2002. During interrogation, two bangles were recovered at the instance of the petitioner on 5-11-2002.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the entire police record. I have noticed that the complainant had not mentioned the names of the perpetrators in the F.I.R. The prosecution has not been able to show the basis on which the complainant implicated the petitioner after a delay of 11 months. In the circumstances of the case, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to get arranged the test identification parade. The petitioner was arrested on 30-11-2002 more than three years ago but the trial has not yet concluded. The identity of the petitioner as one of the perpetrators is open to further probe and inquiry. In addition to it the delay in the conclusion of the trial has persuaded me to release the petitioner on bail. I accept this petition and order the release of the petitioner on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
N. H. Q. /J-92/L Bail allowed.