SAJJAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Sajjad Hussain, in connection with F.I.R. No. 225 registered at Police Station Chowk Azam, District Layyah, for offences under sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the investigation and the evidence presented. The Lahore High Court observed that the occurrence took place at night, the culprits were unidentified, and the F.I.R. was lodged with a two-day delay without naming the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner was only implicated via a supplementary statement fifteen days later, which merely expressed suspicion. Crucially, no test identification parade was conducted, and no recovery was made from the petitioner. Holding that the case against the petitioner called for further inquiry into his guilt, the court admitted the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution case relies on delayed implication, suspicion rather than direct evidence, and lacks recovery or identification proceedings, the accused is entitled to bail under the purview of further inquiry.
- Does the absence of a test identification parade entitle an accused to bail when the F.I.R. is delayed and the accused was not initially nominated?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution case relies solely on a supplementary statement expressing suspicion without any recovery?
- Does the completion of the investigation and submission of the challan justify the continued custody of an accused when the case requires further inquiry?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Order
Through this petition Sajjad Hussain petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 225 registered at Police Station Chowk Azam, District Layyah on 16-9-2001 for offences under sections 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 occurrence in this case had taken place during a night and the culprits had remained unidentified during the said occurrence. The F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a delay of two days and it is not disputed that the present petitioner had not been nominated in the F.I.R. as one of the perpetrators of the offences in question. The petitioner's name had surfaced in this case for the first time through a supplementary statement made by the complainant before the Investigating Officer after about fifteen days of the alleged occurrence and even in that supplementary statement only a suspicion had been expressed against the petitioner. No test identification parade has been held in this case so as to positively connect the petitioner with the alleged offences and admittedly no recovery of any sort has been effected from the petitioner in connection with this case. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation.
3. For what has been discussed the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (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,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial