MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs RIASAT ALI and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order granting post-arrest bail to respondent Riasat Ali, who was accused in an FIR registered under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity. The petitioner argued that bail should not have been granted because a licensed gun belonging to the complainant's father was recovered from the respondent's possession. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that while the respondent's two sons were nominated in the FIR, the respondent himself was not. The Court reasoned that if the respondent had been involved, the complainant would likely have named him alongside his sons, with whom he resided. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the failure to conduct an identification parade after the respondent's arrest brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the High Court's order, affirmed the grant of bail, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Does the failure to hold an identification parade after arrest bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the omission of an accused's name in an FIR a relevant factor when considering the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---The petitioner Muhammad Suleman seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 14-12-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous No,7498-B of 2001 whereby respondent No,1 Riasat Ali was admitted to post-arrest bail.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that F.I.R. No,215 was lodged at Police Station Saddar, Farooqabad, District Sheikhupura, on 16-7-2001 under section 395, P.P.C. With the facts that on the night between 15/16-7-2001, the complainant, his father Haji Ilam Din, Jamal Din and Muhammad Sharif were sleeping when at about 11-00 p.m. They saw in the light of electric bulbs six culprits wearing police dress armed with lethal weapons entered inside their house. They caught hold of complainant's father and brought him down to the courtyard and on the gun point robbed the complainant party cash of Rs,19,000, golden ornaments, one .12 bore gun with licence owned by Muhammad Aamer and another .12 bore gun owned by Haji Ilam Din. They also took away Tractor No,SAD-1905 Massy Fargosan. The complainant with the help of a foot-tracker reached in a Haveli at Mauza Malook, Police Station Warburton where they saw the stolen Tractor and identified four co-accused as Asghar son of Noor, Pappy Dogar and Akbar and Sarfraz sons of Riasat and about the remaining two accused, he stated that he would be in a position to identify if seen.
3. Ch. Ali Muhammad, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner mainly contended that a licensed gun of the complainant's father Haji Ilam Din was recovered from the possession of respondent No,1 Riasat Ali as such he being connected with the alleged offence, is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. We have gone through the impugned order and the record of the case in detail. We have not been persuaded to agree with the contentions of the petitioner's counsel mainly for the reason that out of the two above mentioned accused nominated in the F.I.R. Two are the sons of respondent Riasat Ali are residing jointly. Had Riasat Ali been the accused, the complainant would have nominated him as one of the culprits particularly when he has nominated his two sons, namely, Sarfraz and Akbar. Moreover, non-holding of identification parade in respect of respondents after the arrest brings his case within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C, as such he was rightly granted bail. The principles regarding the cancellation of bail are quite different from that of grant of bail.
5. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order which is maintained. The petition is dismissed and leave refused.
Cited by 9 cases
- Abdul Hadi alias Babul and 2 others vs The State 2024 PCRLJ 1521
- Sohail Khattak vs The State 2023 MLD 1924
- MUHAMMAD SALMAN Versus State 2016 YLRN 4
- ASIF vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 211
- MUHAMMAD AJMAL Versus State 2010 MLD 1430
- ALLAH WASAYA Versus THE STATE 2004 PCRLJ 1659
- SARFRAZ alias PUNNU N vs THE STATE 2004 P C R L J 302
- SARFRAZ Versus THE STATE 2004 PCRLJ 302
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State 2006 YLR 14