AMANULLAH alias MITHU vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a bail application by the Lahore High Court in a murder and robbery case. The petitioner, Amanullah alias Mithu, was arrested following a blind First Information Report (F.I.R.) regarding an incident where the victim, Ehsanullah, was murdered and money was robbed. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being identified in a subsequent identification parade, given that his name was absent from the initial F.I.R. and the identification parade occurred after a delay. The Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The Court reasoned that the offense was punishable by death or life imprisonment, and while the identification test was delayed, the State provided a satisfactory explanation supported by the case diary. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, establishing that where a reasonable explanation for procedural delays in investigation exists, and the accused is identified in a valid parade, bail may be refused in serious, non-bailable offenses.
- Does the absence of an accused's name in a blind F.I.R. automatically entitle the accused to bail?
- Can a delay in holding an identification parade be excused if the prosecution provides a satisfactory explanation?
- Is an accused charged with an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment entitled to bail if identified in a parade?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.---Petitioner Amanullah alias Mithu has sought leave to appeal against a judgment dated 16-9-1996 delivered by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court dismissing his Criminal Miscellaneous No,2770/B of 1996 for bail.
2. ' Petitioner Amanullah was arrested by police on 8-1-1996 on a blind F.I.R. Registered on 2-1-1996 at Police Station Saddar, Sialkot bearing No,2 of 1996.
3. ' Said F.I.R. Relates to robbery of Rs,3,000 from Muhammad Riaz and murder of Ehsanullah, which took place on 2-1-1996 at 6-45 p.m. At a place near Gunna Kalan, District Sialkot. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Rashid Ahmad, who was eye-witness alongwith victim Muhammad Riaz. Three culprits were said to have committed the robbery and to have fired at Ehsanullah. The F.I.R. Was recorded on the same date at 9-00 p.m.
4. ' After arrest of petitioner Ehsanullah on 8-1-1996, he was remanded to judicial lock-up where his identification parade was held on 11-1-1996 under supervision of a Magistrate. He was picked up by Rashid Ahmad as well as by Muhammad Riaz to be the culprit.
5. ' Petitioner moved the trial Court for bail, but his application was dismissed on 12-6-1996. He repeated his request in the High Court, which dismissed his bail application under the impugned judgment. Hence this petition.
6. ' Notice of this petition was issued to the Advocate-General on whose behalf Mr: Dil Muhammad Tarar has appeared. He has been heard and so also Mr. Mehmood Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on- Record for the petitioner.
7. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that name of the petitioner did not figure in the F.I.R. And witnesses Rashid Ahmad and Muhammad Riaz knew the petitioner being of the same village and had the petitioner participated in the crime, he would have been named in the F.I.R.
8. ' Mr. Dil Muhammad Tarar, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition vehemently and argued that two similar cases had already been registered against the petitioner and he did not deserve being released on bail. In respect of delay in holding of the identification test, learned counsel argued that the petitioner was produced on the same day of his arrest before a, Magistrate, who remanded the petitioner to custody and supervised the identification test on 11-1- 1996. Learned State Counsel rebutted the contention that the petitioner was already known to Rashid Ahmad and Muhammad Riaz.
9. It is a murder case, punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The identification test is, no doubt, delayed but explanation for the same has been furnished with support of entry dated 8-1- 1996 from the case diary. No case appears to have been made out for interference with the impugned judgment and this petition for leave to appeal stands dismissed.