MUHAMMAD QASIM vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Qasim, an accused in FIR No. 204 registered under Sections 458, 380, 411, and 337-A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ahmadpur Lamma, District Rahim Yar Khan. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delayed FIR, lack of initial identification, absence of a test identification parade, and general nature of allegations. The Lahore High Court held that the case called for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as no test identification parade was conducted, no specific injury was attributed to the petitioner, and further detention would amount to premature punishment. The court laid down the principle that vague extra-judicial confirmations do not substitute for proper identification, and bail should not be withheld by way of premature punishment when a case falls within the scope of further inquiry.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when an FIR is lodged with a significant delay and lacks proper identification of the accused?
- Does a vague statement by a complainant regarding involvement based on brotherhood confirmation satisfy legal identification requirements?
- Whether the absence of a test identification parade makes the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the concession of bail be withheld by way of premature punishment when the submission of challan renders physical custody unnecessary?
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Crl. Misc. 1/1999 ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.~ Dispensation sought for is allowed. Disposed of.
Crl. Misc. U56-B/1999 Muhammad Qasim petitioner is ain accused person in case FIR No. 204 registered at Police Station Ahmadpur Lamma, District Rahim Yar Khan on 4.10.1999 for offences under Sections 458/380/41 l/337-A(iii), P.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner and his co-accused is that during a night about 22 days prior to the registration of the FIR they had committed a theft and had soon after caused injuries to Bashir Ahmed complainant. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the above-mentioned case on 13.11.1999 and subsequently his successive applications for post-arrest bail were dismissed by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Sadiq Abad and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sadiq, Abad vide orders dated 19.11.1999 and 10.12.1999 respectively. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the. Record it has been noticed that the FIR in this Case had been lodged with a delay of 22 days. It was admittedly a case of a night occurrence and the petitioner had admittedly not been identified during the initial stages of this case. It is still not clear as to on what basis or evidence the petitioner has been implicated in this case. A vague and generalized statement by the complainant in the FIR that the petitioner had been implicated in this case on the basis of confirmation regarding his. Involvement by the brotherhood and on the basis of Oath prima facie does not meet the -requirements of the law regarding identification of an accused person. It is not disputed that on test identification parade has so far been conducted in this case so as to positively implicate the petitioner. Even otherwise no. Specific injury to the complainant had been attributed to the petitioner. A recovery ,of an ordinary stick from the petitioner during the investigation prima facie does not connect him with the offences alleged against him. .The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, physical custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It is trite law that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment.
3. For what has been observed above, the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.