BAGO alias PATHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by four applicants charged with offences under sections 307, 394, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, following an alleged highway robbery and shooting incident. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the circumstances surrounding their identification and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court observed that the applicants remained in police custody for approximately fifteen days prior to the identification parade, casting doubt on the reliability of the identification process at the pre-trial stage. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged extra-judicial confession was made to a minor and lacked sufficient weight for the purpose of denying bail. Holding that the applicants' complicity required further inquiry, the Court granted bail, invoking the principle that where there are reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused, the case falls within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, necessitating the grant of bail.
- Does holding an identification parade after fifteen days of police custody render the identification evidence doubtful for the purpose of bail?
- Does the presence of reasonable grounds for further inquiry into an accused's complicity entitle them to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an extra-judicial confession made to a minor be considered sufficient evidence to deny bail?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicants Bago, Amanullah, Saleh and Imdad are seeking bail in a case registered under sections 307, 394, 397 read with section 34, P.P.C. And section 13-D, Arms Ordinance. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 7th March, 1981 complainant Abdul Kadir who is Field Assistant in the Agricultural Office posted at Dawood Phulapoto, after finishing his work was coming on a 'Honda' motorcycle alongwith one Mir Muhammad.
2. ' When they reached near Faiz Wah they were suddenly confronted by the present applicants who came out of ambush from the nearby foliage holding a rope blocking the whole width of the road in order to stop them. Seeing this the complainant applied the brakes and stopped his motorcyle.
3. The culprits fired two shots one of which bit the complainant and other his companion Mir Muhammad as a result of the shots they both fell down and raised cries on which the witnesses were attracted. In the meantime, Police Patrol Party came there and removed them to the Civil Hospital.
4. ' The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the bail plea of the applicants and hence they have come up before this Court.
5. ' It is pointed out on behalf of the applicants that except applicant Imdad the other three applicants were arrested on 21st March, 1981 and remained in police custody until 5th April, 1981 when their Identification Test was held through the prosecution witnesses. In the meantime, the police had obtained remand on 23rd March, 1981 and 2nd April, 1981. There is no allegation in the F. I.
6. R. Of any property having been robbed by the applicants. However, during the investigation the police is said to have recovered from applicant Bago a wrist watch of 'Popular' make. The other recoveries are hatchet from applicant Muhammad Saleh, country-made pistols from applicants Imdad and Amanullah and gun from applicant Bago. These recoveries were made on 5th April, 1981. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that for the present there is no evidence connecting them with the incident mentioned in the F. I. R. except the Identification Test. In this connection, it is argued that the evidence of identification for the present purposes is doubtful since the applicants remained in the custody of the police for nearly 15 days after which the Identification Parade was arranged. In this behalf reference has been made to cases reported in 1975 P Cr. L J 1271 and 1968 P Cr. L J 1976.
7. ' Mr. Agha Saiftuddin, Advocate appearing for the State has opposed this application. He states that the accused are charged with highway robbery in a daring manner. He submits that there is evidence of extra-judicial confession by applicants Amanullah and Imdad as well as Footprint Test in which the prints of the applicants were picked out.
8. ' I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel. It seems to me that the main question in this case is identity of the present applicants and their connection with the offence. For the present purposes that the applicants remained in police custody for over a period of 15 days before they were put to Identification Test bring their case within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. As the question of their complicity in the crime requires further enquiry. As regards the extra-judicial confession, it has been pointed out that this is alleged to have been made to a young boy of 8 years to whom the applicants had only stated that they had gone for `Shikar'. The evidence of footprint test will also have to be assessed at the trial.
9. ' For the foregoing reasons, I grant bail to the applicants in the sum of Rs, 10,000 each with one surety and P. R. In the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Khairpur. .
Cited by 8 cases
- ZAHID and others vs THE STATE 1998 P Cr. L J 45
- OMAIR AHMED SIDDIQUI Versus THE STATE 1996 PCRLJ 22
- JAVAID IQBAL vs THE STATE 1995 P Cr. L J 1838
- HUSSAIN BUX Versus STATE 1994 PCRLJ 508
- BASAR vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 1956
- ZULFIQUAR ALI and another vs THE STATE 1990 P Cr. L J 822
- AKHTAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE- 1987 P Cr. L J 2423
- AMANULLAH And ANOTHER vs THE STATE- 1987 P Cr. L J 1991