MUHAMMAD SARWAR alias SARRO vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Sarwar, who was implicated in a case registered under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was not named in the initial First Information Report but was subsequently arrested in connection with another matter. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being identified in an identification parade and having incriminating evidence recovered at his pointation. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting that he had been identified by the complainant during a parade supervised by a Magistrate and that a recovery of money was made based on his pointation. The Court emphasized that the offence of dacoity under Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is a heinous crime falling within the prohibitory clause of the law. Consequently, the Court found sufficient prima facie material connecting the petitioner to the offence and dismissed the bail petition.
- Is an accused person entitled to bail if they were not named in the initial First Information Report but were later identified in an identification parade?
- Does the offence of dacoity under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause regarding the grant of bail?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,141 of 1998, dated 7-3-1998 registered at Police Station Baghbanpura, under section 395, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Muhammad Yaqoob submitted an application to the local police for registration of case against five accused persons with the allegation that he was a truck driver and on 7-3-1998 at 4-30 a.m. Was proceeding towards Jallo More on Truck number 6615/PRB. When he reached near octroi post Mehmood Booti five persons whose ages and structures have been given in the F.I.R., armed with deadly weapons, suddenly emerged out and stopped him. They snatched Rs,40,000 from him and also took away the truck. He further stated that he and P.W. Ghafoor Hussain could identify the accused.
3. The present petitioner was arrested in another case on 29-6-1998. A pistol .30 bore was recovered from him and was sent to jail. Subsequently, during identification parade conducted by the Magistrate on 7-8-1998, the petitioner was identified by the complainant and a sum of Rs,5,000 was also recovered at his pointation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is in jail since 29-6-1998 and the trial Court has not recorded evidence of even a single witness so far. He is not named in the F.I.R. And as such entitled to grant of bail.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail.
6. Although the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. But he was identified by the complainant in the identification parade held under supervision of a Magistrate on 7-8-1998. Recovery of Rs,5,000 was also made on his pointation. The police has collected sufficient material prima facie, to connect him with the commission of alleged crime. The offence under section 395, P.P.C. Is a heinous and falls within the prohibitory clause. I am, therefore, not persuaded to release him on bail at this stage. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.