SOHRAB HYDER vs THE STATE
This criminal matter arose from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused in a case registered under Sections 392, 397, and 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979. The prosecution alleged that armed individuals entered the complainant's house, robbed cash and jewelry, and injured one of the inmates. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of his identification and the lack of incriminating recovery. The Lahore High Court observed that the petitioner was identified by only one witness during an identification parade but was not recognized by other eyewitnesses present at the scene. Furthermore, nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession despite a ten-day physical remand. The Court held that these circumstances rendered the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry. Consequently, the bail petition was accepted subject to furnishing requisite bail bonds.
- Whether failure of multiple eyewitnesses to identify an accused during an identification parade makes the case one of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Whether the absence of any recovery during extended physical remand justifies the grant of post-arrest bail in a robbery case?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 151 of 1998, dated 20-4-1998 under section 392/397/394, P.P.C. Read with section 17 Haraba, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 20-4-1998 at about 12.00 noon while the complainant Haji Abdul Majeed alongwith his son Abdul Shakeel and daughters were present in his house, three young boys armed with pistol made their entry and threatened them to handover to them whatever was available with them. Upon this Abdul Shakeel took Rs,80,000 from the Almirah and handed over the same to them. It is contended in the F.I.R. That one of the said persons fired with his pistol as a result of which his daughter Mst. Zarqa was injured who was later on admitted in Holy Family Hospital. He asserted that while leaving the house ear rings and chain of his daughters Mst.
Nabila Shahzadi and Anila were also removed by the said persons and consequently the instant F.I.R. Was lodged on 20-4-1998 at 12.45 p.m. The petitioner applied for bail which was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide, order dated 27-8-1999. Hence the instant petition.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that actually the instant petitioner was arrested in case under section 13/20/65 on 23-7-1999 pertaining to Police Station Banni, Rawalpindi, that on 23-7-1999 Haji Abdul Majeed complainant and Abdul Shakeel were summoned at the police station where they were shown the instant petitioner, that later on identification parade was got conducted on 11-8-1999 in which Abdul Shakeel identified the accused/petitioner to be one of the persons who had committed dacoity whereas he was not identified by the other two ladies, that the present petitioner has been involved in this case just to get rid of the case registered at the instance of Haji Abdul Majeed and which was pending in the said police station. He further contends that nothing has been recovered from the present petitioner although he remained on physical remained for about 10 days.
5. Conversely it is stated by the learned counsel for the State that statements of Haji Abdul Majeed and Abdul Shakeel were recorded on 23-7-1999 and they were shown the present petitioners alongwith others. He further admits that identification parade was conducted on 11-8-1999 in which the present petitioner was identified by Abdul Shakeel, but could not be identified by his other sisters Mst. Nabeela and Mst. Aneela.
6. The only evidence which has so far come on record is that petitioner stands involved in a case under section 13/20/65 pertaining to Police Station, Banni, Rawalpindi. He is alleged to have been identified by Abdul Shakeel but could not be identified by other inmates of the house namely Mst.
Aneela and Mst. Nabeela. Nothing has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner although he remained with the police for about 10 days on physical remand.
7. The mere fact that petitioner could not be identified by the other inmates of the house coupled with the fact that nothing has been recovered at his instance makes the case of the petitioner open for further enquiry. Accordingly, petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.