FIDA HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused person charged under sections 395 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in connection with a dacoity case. 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 petitioner had been incarcerated for over one year and three months, no identification parade had been conducted, and no incriminating recoveries were made from him. Furthermore, the petitioner was a previous non-convict, and the mere registration of other cases did not categorize him as a desperate or hardened criminal. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court granted bail, establishing the principle that in the absence of identification or recovery, and where an accused is a previous non-convict, the mere pendency of other cases is insufficient to deny bail.
- Does the absence of an identification test and recovery of incriminating material entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Can bail be refused solely on the basis of other registered cases when the accused is a previous non-convict?
- Does the registration of other cases against an accused automatically classify them as a desperate or hardened criminal for the purpose of bail?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Fida Hussain petitioner has sought for relief of post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.277 registered on 9-12-1997, under sections 395/411, P.P.C. with Police Station Galaywal, Tehsil and District Lodhran.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on the night preceding to 9-12-1997 at about 7-00 p.m. six unknown persons having fire-arms had snatched away motorcycle from the complainant and one Nisar Ahmad.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that except belated supplementary statement of the complainant and one Muhammad Murtaza recorded on 25-7-2002, there is no other incriminating material evidence against him; that he is behind the bars for about one year and three months; that he was not put to any identification test; that no recovery was effected from him; and that merely on the basis of registration of some other cases against him, he may not be refused the relief of bail, and that he is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the application. However, he has conceded that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year and three months and he was not put to any identification test. He has also conceded that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and he is previous non-convict.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both the sides. The petitioner admittedly is behind the bars for the last almost one year and three months and was not put to any identification test. Furthermore, nothing was recovered from him. His case thus calls for further inquiry into his guilt and as such is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. No doubt, some cases of similar nature stand registered against him, but he admittedly is previous non-convict. Thus, merely due to registration of cases against him, he cannot be held to be a dangerous desperate or hardened criminal.
6. In this view of the matter, I find him entitled to the grant of bail. The application is, therefore, accepted and ht; is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
H.B.T./F-163/L Bail granted.