ATHER QADEER vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Ather Qadeer seeking release in case FIR No. 82 registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gulberg, Lahore. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's delayed implication through a supplementary statement, lack of a test identification parade, and doubtful recoveries warrant further inquiry into his guilt under criminal procedure. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly as the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR, no identification parade was held, recovered cash was not connected to the robbery, and weapon recovery lacked ballistic matching, while investigation was already complete and physical custody was no longer required. The key principle laid down is that delayed implication without identification parades and unverified recoveries, coupled with the completion of investigation, entitles an accused to bail on the grounds of further inquiry.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused is not nominated in the FIR and is named only in a delayed supplementary statement?
- Does the absence of a test identification parade affect the connection of the accused with the alleged offence for the purpose of bail?
- What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery during investigation in the absence of a matching crime empty when considering a bail petition?
- Does the completion of investigation and submission of the challan support the grant of bail when physical custody of the accused is no longer required?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.- Through this petition Ather Qadeer petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case PIR No.,82 registered at Police Station Gulberg, Lahore on 6.3.2001 for an offence under section 392, PPC.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the petitioner had not been nominated in the FIR as one of the culprits who had perpetrated the offence in question and that the petitioner's name had surfaced in this case for the first time through a supplementary statement of the complainant made after thirteen days of the occurrence in question, It is not disputed that during the investigation no test identification parade had been conducted in this case so as to positively connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.
The cash allegedly recovered from the petitioner's custody during the investigation prima facie does not stand connected with the amount allegedly robbed during the incident in question.
Although a revolver had statedly been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case but in the absence of any matching with any crime-empty the evidentiary value of such a recovery is suspect, In somewhat similar circumstances bail had been allowed to the accused persons in the cases of Muhammad Tariq v. The State (2000 P.Cr.L.J. 1840) and Muhammad Rafiq v. The State 1997 SCM R 412). The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, physical custody of the petitioner is no longer required for the purposes of investigation.
3. For what has been discussed 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 subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.