KARIM vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 62 of 1997 registered under sections 382 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Attock, concerning an incident of house robbery and dacoity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where his name was absent from the initial F.I.R., he was not nominated in the subsequent complainant application, no identification parade was held, and no recovery of robbed articles was effected from him, having been implicated solely on a co-accused's statement. The Lahore High Court held that these circumstances rendered the petitioner's involvement a matter for further inquiry. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that implication by a co-accused without supporting recoveries, identification, or initial nomination warrants further probe and the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when implicated solely on the statement of a co-accused without any recovery or identification test?
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the F.I.R. and subsequent investigative applications make the case one for further probe under bail provisions?
- Whether failure to conduct an identification parade of an un-nominated accused provides grounds for the grant of bail?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,62 of 1997, dated 31-3-1997 under section 382/392, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Attock.
2. Brief facts of the case are that during the night 30/31-3-1997 at about 9-30 p.m. Four persons entered into the house of complainant and robbed him of the articles mentioned in the F.I.R. The matter remained pending for about two years when the complainant moved an application on 4- 7-1999 that as a result of his private investigation Tanvir Ahmad and Rehmat Ali are responsible for committing the dacoit in his house. Consequently on 5-7-1999, Tanvir Ahmad, Rehmat Ali and Amjad Hussain were arrested. Later on, Tanvir Ahmad and Rehmat Ali accused also nominated the present petitioner to be their companion. Tanvir Ahmad, Rehmat Ali and Amjad Hussain also led to the recovery of certain articles, whereas no recovery has been effected at the instance of petitioner. The complainant also did not nominate the petitioner in his application moved on 4-7- 1999. The petitioner was also not put to any identification test.
3. As the name of petitioner neither appear in the F.I.R., nor he has been nominated in the application moved on 4-7-1999, nor he was put to identification test, nor any recovery of robbed articles has been made from him and he has simply been involved at the behest of his co- accused, so all these facts make the case of the petitioner open for further probe. Accordingly petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties, each in .The like amount to the satisfaction of trial :'Court.