ARSHAD MAHMOOD vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a case registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding an alleged robbery. The central legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail where his name was omitted from the First Information Report, no test identification parade was conducted, and the recovered items were never identified. The Lahore High Court granted bail, holding that the prosecution's failure to conduct an identification parade or have the complainant identify the recovered property rendered the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner had been incarcerated for nearly nine months without progress in witness testimony, rendering further detention unnecessary. The key principle established is that where an accused is unnamed in the FIR, no test identification parade is held, and recovered property remains unidentified, the prosecution's case becomes doubtful, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused unnamed in the FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail if no identification parade was held to establish identity?
- Whether recovery of property that remains unidentified by the complainant constitutes sufficient grounds to withhold bail in a robbery charge?
- Whether continuous detention without examination of witnesses justifies grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner stands involved in Crime Report No,291, under section 392, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala, on 28-6-2000 at the behest of one Muhammad Naseem. He could be arrested by the police on 6-11-2001 during course of investigation. He preferred his application for grant of post-arrest bail before learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, who made over the same to a learned Additional Sessions Judge for its disposal in accordance with law. The said learned Judge by virtue of his order dated 13-2-2002. declined him the desired relief on the basis of different reasons contained in the order itself. Now by filing the instant petition he has approached this Court seeking same relief.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that name of the petitioner and that of his co- accused is not mentioned in the F.I.R., that a general type of description of features has been given therein, that no identification parade was held to establish his identity as such and that recovery of a pistol and two wrist watches is a patent fabrication, that the challan has already been submitted, but not a single witness has been produced by the prosecution so far and that case against the petitioner is of doubtful character.
3.On the contrary, learned counsel for the State submits that two small wrist watches and one pistol stood recovered at the instance of the petitioner, but the case property was never identified by the complainant or anyone else. He halfheartedly opposes grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. Both the sides have been heard at length. Admittedly, name of the petitioner does not figure in the first information report. Recovery of two children watches has been effected, which remained unidentified throughout during investigation. Prosecution did not organize or arrange test identification parade to prove identity of the petitioner. He is behind the bars for the last about nine months. His long incarceration is not likely to serve any useful purpose to the prosecution.
5. In my view a case for grant of bail is made out, so by accepting this petition, I order release of the petitioner on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.