MUHAMMAD ALLAM and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused in relation to Crime No. 67 of 2000, registered at Police Station Ratodero. The incident involved an alleged theft and firing incident occurring on June 1, 2000. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to post-arrest bail given that they were not named in the First Information Report (F.I.R.), no physical description was provided, and the identification parade was conducted after a delay following their arrest. The Sindh High Court held that the absence of the accused's names in the F.I.R., combined with the lack of specific descriptions and the delayed identification parade, created significant doubt regarding their involvement. Consequently, the court granted bail, determining that the case required further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not named in the F.I.R. and no description is provided, reliance on an identification parade conducted after a delay following arrest is insufficient to establish a prima facie case, thereby entitling the accused to bail pending further investigation.
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the F.I.R. entitle them to bail?
- What is the legal effect of conducting an identification parade after a delay following an accused's arrest?
- Is an identification parade without the attribution of a specific role to the accused sufficient to establish a prima facie case?
ORDER
1. ' This incident relates to Crime No,67 of 2000, Police Station Ratodero. The offence seems to have been committed in the middle of the night on 1st June, 2000. It seems that the complainant and his brother woke up in the middle of the night and on the electric bulb light saw five armed persons who were trying to take away the cattels, the brother of the complainant cried thief. The person who had Kalashnikov fired directly at Muhammad Hashim and he fell down. The neighbors gathered and all the accused ran away.
2. ' In the F.I.R no mention has been made of any of the accused nor any description has been given of the accused. The only mention is that they would be identified if seen again. It seems that the accused were arrested on 22-7-2000 and identification was held on 24-7-2000. Even though according to the F.I.R there were five armed persons. It is stated that the person with Kalashnikov fired. It is not clear as to whether the person arrested had the Kalashnikov with him or was it any other person. The counsel for the applicant/accused has relied on the case of Mir Hazar Malik v. The State (1999 SCM R 1377). In this case the name of the accused did not originally transpire in the F.I.R.
3. He was subsequently involved in the commission of the crime. Honourable Supreme Court granted bail. He has also relied on the case of Mehmood Ahmad and 3 others v. The State (1995 SCM R 127).
4. In this case there was more than two hours' delay in lodging F.I.R. Furthermore it was observed that mere identification through identification parade without attribution of a role had no evidentiary value. In the case of Mansoor Ahmad Bhatti v. The State (1976 SCM R 366). In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not named as an assailant in the F.I.R hence entitled to bail. The counsel also relied on the case of Habibur Rehman and another v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 1773) where the persons were put to identification parade after three days of being in police custody. It was held that the possibility of police getting involved with the complaint could not be ruled out as any identification of any accused had to be done forthwith upon the arrest and without further delay whether prima facie a case has been made out. In spite of name not being mentioned and no description given in the F.I.R, mere reliance on an identification that too after a delay of two days after the accused were arrested creates doubt and becomes the case of further enquiry. Bail was granted in the circumstances by short order, dated 30-3-2001. These are the reasons for the same.