SAIFULLAH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused individual in a criminal case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was implicated as the third, previously unknown, suspect in a murder case involving the shooting of the complainant's nephew. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the initial First Information Report and was subsequently identified through the complainant's own inquiry rather than an identification parade or reliable evidence, was entitled to the grant of bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the complainant's method of identifying the petitioner—based on his own private inquiry—was unreliable and legally insufficient for establishing a prima facie case. The Court concluded that the petitioner's implication appeared to be motivated by extraneous reasons. The key principle laid down is that the identification of an unknown accused in a criminal case must be based on reliable, objective evidence rather than the complainant's subjective or unsubstantiated private inquiries.
- Is identification of an unknown accused based solely on a complainant's private inquiry sufficient to deny bail?
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the First Information Report constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Criminal case F.I.R. No, 164 dated 25-2-1999 was registered under section 302/34, P.P.C., at Police Station, Sharaqpur Sharif, District Sheikhupura, at the instance of one Sher Ali. According to complainant, his nephew Ghulam Ali who was proceeding to Primary School was waylaid by Azmat, Nasir Ali and an unknown persons. Azmat accused allegedly fired at Ghulam Ali. The second shot was fired at the victim by Nasir Ali. The third person statingly fired in the air to scare away the witnesses. The accused, thereafter, decamped from the spot. The petitioner was subsequently arrested in the case as being the third unknown person, and had applied for grant of bail to him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State have been heard and record seen. The petitioner was not named in the First Information Report, but later the complainant made a statement before the police that he had inquired into the matter himself and had found that the present petitioner was the third person who was accompanying Azmat and others at the time of incident. This is hardly a way of picking up the unknown accused in a criminal case. The implication of the petitioner in the case appears to be false for extraneous reasons.##TE#
3. The petitioner is allowed bail in the um of Rs,30,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.##TE# 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.