GHULAM RASOOL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Ghulam Rasool, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his alleged involvement in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the lack of identification and the inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. The Court held that the applicant's case was distinguishable from that of the co-accused, whose bail had previously been dismissed. The Court observed that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R., no identification test parade was conducted, and the key eye-witness, who had initially named the applicant in a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, omitted the applicant's name in a subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court found that the applicant's identity and involvement required further enquiry. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's evidence regarding the identity of an accused is inconsistent and lacks corroboration, the case warrants further enquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the omission of an accused's name in a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after being named in a Section 161 statement, constitute grounds for further enquiry in a bail application?
- Is the absence of an identification test parade a relevant factor for granting post-arrest bail when the accused was not named in the F.I.R.?
- Can bail be granted when the State Counsel does not oppose the application on the basis that the case requires further enquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Applicant Ghulam Rasool has been booked alongwith co-accused Muhammad Arshad for an offence punishable under section 302/34, P.P.C. The bail application of co-accused Muhammad Arshad was dismissed by this Court but bail has been sought by the present applicant on the ground that his case is distinguishable and his guilt requires further enquiry.
2. F.I.R. Of the incident was lodged by Pervez Khan, father of deceased Imran. He stated in the F.I.R.
That on 16-11-2000 at 10-00 p.m. He was present in his house when he was informed that somebody had fired at his son Imran who has been removed to Civil Hospital. The complainant rushed to Civil Hospital where he found his son lying dead having bullet injury on his chest. He came to know through Bhakhtiar, his son-in-law, that at Dhobipara in the street some unknown persons for some animosity fired at Imran. Co-accused was arrested on 22-11-2000 and later on statements of two persons Khalid and Zeshan were recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Out of whom Zeshan directly implicated the co-accused. Identification test parade was also conducted in which both the eye- witnesses identified the co-accused. The applicant was arrested on 14-3-2001 when the case was already challaned in Court on 4-12-2000, but admittedly no identification test parade was held.
3. Learned counsel for applicant contended that this is a blind F.I.R. And, in particular, the name of present applicant is not mentioned herein. There is no recovery from the applicant and no identification test parade has been held to establish his identity. Besides, in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Eye-witness Zeshan had named the present applicant but in subsequent statement, recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. He did not name the applicant. In the alternative he took the plea that at the most the allegation against the applicant is that he got hold of the deceased by collar of his shirt btu the fatal shot is not attributed to him.
4. Learned State Counsel did not oppose the bail as in his view the case of applicant requires further enquiry.
5. In the circumstances enumerated above, indeed, the case of applicant, is distinguishable as his name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. And he has also not been nominated in statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Of the eye-witness and there is no identification test parade or other evidence relating to his identity. There is even no evidence of recovery of any incriminating substance from him. No doubt in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. The eye-witness Zeeshan nominated the applicant to be the person who got hold of the deceased by collar of his shirt but subsequently in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. The same witness completely kept silence about the name of present applicant and simply stated that co-accused Arshad Cheetah was known to him.
6. In the circumstances the identity of present applicant requires further enquiry, and the State Counsel has also no objection to grant of bail as such the bail application is allowed. The applicant be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,3, 00,000 and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- IFTIKHAR Versus State 2013 YLR 1184
- MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus State 2006 PCRLJ 883