MUHAMMAD AZMAT Versus State
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Azmat in connection with F.I.R. No. 148 registered under sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Green Town, Lahore, concerning a dacoity of Rs. 19,38,107 committed by unknown persons. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when he was not nominated in the F.I.R., was named in a supplementary statement after one and a half years without an identification parade, and had only a nominal recovery of Rs. 10,000 attributed to him. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as there is no direct or indirect evidence connecting him to the crime, no identification parade was conducted, and the delayed supplementary statement casts doubt on his involvement. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that delayed nomination without identification and weak recovery warrants further inquiry in bail matters.
- Whether an accused not nominated in the F.I.R. and named after a considerable delay through a supplementary statement without an identification parade is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the recovery of a nominal amount compared to the total looted wealth, without proof of identity, make a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Is the absence of an identification parade a ground to doubt the identity of an accused in a bail application?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.--- Muhammad Azmat petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.148, dated 5-3-2006, registered under sections 392/411, P.P.C. at Police Station Green Town, Lahore.
2. Precise allegations as per F.I.R. are that three unknown persons had entered the factory of the complainant and had committed dacoity of Rs.19,38,107.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and no specific role has been attributed to him. Petitioner was nominated in the supplementary statement after 1 1/2 years of the occurrence. He further submits that no crime weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and only Rs.10,000 have been recovered from him. No identification parade was ever held to identify the accused persons. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last ten months. Under the circumstances the petitioner be released on bail.
4. Leaned DPG while opposing the bail application submits that the petitioner has been held guilty in police investigation. Recovery of Rs.10,000 has been effected from him. He, however, submits that no identification parade was held to identify the accused persons.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and have also perused the record. Petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and no role has been ascribed to him. F.I.R. was only got registered against unknown persons and who are those unknown persons it was not known to any one. Since no identification parade was held, therefore, nothing definite can be ascertained regarding the identity of the present petitioner which could possibly connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner. He has been nominated in the supplementary statement after 1-1/2 years. This fact alone proves that after such a long time complainant has not been able to trace out the real culprits. No weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner. Amount recovered from the petitioner is only to the extent of Rs.10,000 whereas dacoity had been committed to the tune of Rs.19,38,107 and there is no evidence on record that as to whether the amount which has been looted in the said occurrence is exactly the same which has been recovered from the petitioner. In such like situation, the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,00 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-266/L Bail granted.