NAZEER AHMAD alias NAJJA vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Nazeer Ahmad alias Najja seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 178 registered at Police Station Farid Nagar, District Pakpattan Sharif, under sections 382, 392, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given his non-nomination in the F.I.R., the absence of a test identification parade, an affidavit by the complainant exonerating him, and the nature of the recovery made. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R., no test identification parade was conducted, the complainant swore an affidavit exonerating him, and the recovery only attracted Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 which falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petition ought to be allowed. The court laid down the principle that bail is to be granted when the incriminating material against the accused does not fall within the prohibitory clause and involves circumstances weakening the prosecution case.
- Whether an accused not nominated in the F.I.R. and against whom no test identification parade has been conducted is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does an affidavit by the complainant exonerating the accused constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
- Does an offence under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Nazeer Ahmad alias Najja petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,178 registered at Police Station Farid Nagar, District Pakpattan Sharif on 21-9-2000 for offences under sections 382/392/411, P.P.C.
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 F.I.R. As one of the perpetrators of the offences in question. Admittedly no test identification parade has been conducted in this case so as to positively implicate the petitioner in the alleged offences. The order passed by the learned trial Court on 9-4-2001 refusing bail to the petitioner shows that the complainant of this case has already sworn an affidavit exonerating the present petitioner. The alleged recovery effected from the petitioner during the investigation of this case only attracts the provisions of section 411, P.P.C.
Which do not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr. P.C.
3. For what has been discussed above this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.