ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons facing trial for highway robbery under Section 395 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail despite the absence of their names in the First Information Report and the lack of an identification parade. The Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicants were involved in a serious act of terrorism involving the snatching of a vehicle at gunpoint, with the stolen vehicle subsequently recovered from their possession. The Court clarified that the absence of the accused's names in the initial report or the failure to conduct an identification parade does not entitle an accused to bail, as these issues require a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an identification parade is merely a method to test witness veracity, not a mandatory legal requirement, and that vehicle snatching constitutes an act of terrorism.
- Is the conduct of an identification parade a mandatory requirement of law for the prosecution of an accused?
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the First Information Report entitle them to bail?
- Is vehicle snatching considered an act of terrorism?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.--- The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicants/accused Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Ghafoor are facing trial in S.T.A. Case No. l of 1999 before Special Judge, S.T.A., Malir, Karachi, under section 395 read with section 34, P.P.C., which has arisen out of F.I:R. No.89 of 1998 of Police Station Sachal, Malir, Karachi.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on the night intervening between 20th and 21st August, 1998 after loading sand in his dimper truck No.S-14030 the complainant Jawed was coming alongwith his conductor to supply the sand and when reached near post office within the jurisdiction of Sachal Police Station, when 7/8 persons wearing Shalwars and shirts emerged from jungle. Out of them 3/4 persons were armed with klashnikovs and the rest with "Dandas" (wooden sticks). They came in front of the vehicle and gave signal to stop the vehicle. The complainant stopped the vehicle. Three/Four persons from the culprits boarded in the vehicle and brought down the complainant and conductor. They took their personal search and took out Rs.3,600 from the pocket of the complainant and one golden ring, one electronic wrist watch was also removed from his hand. They also snatched wrist watch from the conductor. The remaining culprits snatched dimper and took it away. The two culprits duly armed with klashnikov kept guard over complainant and his conductor and at about 5-00 a.m. they left them and disappeared in the jungle. The complainant informed his employer and they remained in search of vehicle but could not get any clue and ultimately the complainant lodged the report. He has claimed in the F.I.R. that he could identify 3 or 4 persons from among the culprits.
3. During the course of investigation applicants/accused were arrested and after usual investigation they were sent up to stand trial.
4. The applicants/accused applied for the bail before the trial Court but their bail plea was declined by impugned order dated 26-2-1999.
5. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Ismail Memon, learned counsel for the applicants/accused and Syed Jalil Ahmed Hashmi, learned A.A.-G. on behalf of the State. The latter opposed the bail plea of applicants/accused.
6. The perusal of record shows that applicants/accused alongwith their companions committed the highway robbery at the point of lethal weapons of prohibited bore by putting the complainant party in fear of death during odd hours of night. They snatched dimper/vehicle which was recovered from the possession of applicants/accused.
7. The argument that name of applicants/accused does not transpire in, the F.I.R. is without any substance because as per prosecution case both the applicants/accused were not previously known to complainant or P.Ws. Not giving the description of eminent features in F.I.R. or holding no identification parade, in our view tantamounts to deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence which is not permissible under law at the stage of bail. The holding of identification test is not a requirement of law. It is only one of the methods to test veracity of the evidence of an eye-witness who has had an occasion to see the accused and claims to identify him. In this context we are fortified by the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Akbar v. The State 1998 SCMR 2538.
8. The vehicle snatching is an act of terrorism. In this context we are fortified by an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Dhani Bux and others v. The State (Criminal Bail Application No.289 of 1998), to which I was one of the Members.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that bail plea of applicants/accused merits no consideration. Consequently, application for bail stands dismissed.
N.H.Q./A-341/K Bail refused
Cited by 2 cases
- ALI SHER and others vs The STATE 2016 P Cr. L J 627
- ABID HUSSAIN Versus State 2011 PCrLJ 1748