BASHIR AHMAD alias SHARI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Bashir Ahmad alias Shari, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under sections 457, 380, and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his implication and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the initial F.I.R. and only surfaced as a suspect following a supplementary statement made by the complainant twenty months after the alleged occurrence. Furthermore, no test identification parade was conducted to establish the petitioner's identity, and the recovered cash could not be definitively linked to the stolen property. Holding that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry into his guilt, the Court granted the bail application under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case relies on a delayed supplementary statement without corroborative identification evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry.
- Does the absence of a test identification parade in a case where the accused was not named in the F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused person be granted bail when their name appears for the first time in a supplementary statement recorded twenty months after the occurrence?
- Is the recovery of cash that cannot be definitively linked to the stolen property sufficient to deny bail?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Bashir Ahmed alias Shari petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No, 35 registered at Police Station Qila Soba Singh, District Narowal on 28-3-1998 for offences under section 457/380/392, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the petitioner had not been named in the F.I.R. As one of the culprits; the petitioner's name had surfaced in this case for the first time when the complainant had made a supplementary statement after about 20 months of the occurrence; admittedly no test identification parade has been held in this case so as to positively identify and connect the petitioner with the offences in question; only a cash of Rs, 1,290 has been recovered from the petitioner during the investigation which prima facie does not stand connected with the stolen property; and the petitioner is languishing in judicial lock-up for the last four months and his physical custody in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been observed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to, bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.