BABAR MASIH Versus State
The petitioner Babar Masih sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 268 of 2002 registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Civil Lines Gujranwala for robbery committed at a shop. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of identification and recovery. The Lahore High Court held that since the complainant was not an eye-witness and the actual eyewitness servant failed to identify the petitioner, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the law. The court laid down the principle that failure of identification by the primary eyewitness at the relevant stage makes the accused's case one of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.
- Does the failure of the primary eyewitness to identify the accused make the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when identification by the eyewitness is lacking?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Babar Masih petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.268 of 2002, dated 29-7-2002 registered under section 392, P.P.C. with Police Station Civil Lines Gujranwala at the instance of Muhammad Rafique Insari for robbery allegedly committed at his shop on 29-7-2002 at 9-00 a.m.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant stated in his application that he owns a shop by the name of Nasir Studio at Sialkot Road Gujranwala which is run by his servant Muhammad Waqas. On the fateful day two young men entered into the shop in order to get their snaps prepared. In the photo-room one of them took out a pistol and the other robbed four cameras on gun-point description of the culprits was also given in the F.I.R. and it was stated that if the accused were arrested the servant of the complainant could identify them. Thereafter the petitioner along with Aneel Pasha were arrested in case F.I.R. No.455 of 2003 registered at Police Station City Daska. They were in police lock-up when the complainant made a supplementary statement stating therein that he along with his son had seen the culprits in police lock-up at Police Station City Daska and they are the same accused who had committed robbery in their shop upon which the petitioner along with his co-accused was arrested in this case. During investigation the robbed cameras were recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner. The pistol with which the petitioner was allegedly armed at the time of occurrence was recovered from him. After completion of the investigation challan of the case was submitted. He was declined after arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala vide order, dated 28-4-2004. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State have been heard exhaustively and record has been perused.
4. Admittedly the complainant himself was not the eye-witness of the occurrence. The petitioner was to be identified by Waqas servant of the complainant who was eye-witness of the occurrence but he was not identified by the said Waqas which makes the case of the petitioner of further inquiry. Therefore, the instant petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./B-67/L Bail allowed.