ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE
This petition was filed by the petitioner, Asghar Ali, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 382 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner forcibly snatched a bicycle from the complainant's son, subjected him to violence, and confined him in a culvert. The petitioner contended that he was not previously known to the complainant or his son, and that his name was supplied by two individuals who had an ongoing property dispute with his father. The core legal question was whether the failure of the prosecution to conduct an identification parade, coupled with the alleged enmity of the informants, brought the petitioner's case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that because the petitioner was not previously known to the victim and no identification test was conducted, his involvement in the offense required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court accepted the application and granted bail to the petitioner.
- Whether the failure to conduct an identification test when the accused is not previously known to the complainant or the victim makes the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted on the ground of further inquiry where the accused's name was supplied by intermediaries who have an active enmity or dispute with the accused's family?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner Asghar Ali seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.149 dated 6-4-2002, under sections 382/411, P.P.C. Police Station Sadar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 4-4-2002 at about 2-00 p.m. He forcibly had snatched the bicycle from the son of the complainant Shahid Shabbir Tabbasum and had also subjected him to violence and also shut him in a culvert.
3. The bail has been sought on the ground that he has falsely been roped in: that he was not personally known either to complainant or his son, so in such circumstances he ought to have been put to identification test, but the same has not been done and it would bring his case within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Requiring further inquiry into his guilt; that his name was disclosed to the complainant and his son by one Fateh Muhammad and Abdul Rehman's as shown in the F.I.R., who were on inimical terms with him there is dispute over the Ahata between them and his father; that the recovery has been shown from field and not from his physical possession; that he is behind the bars for the last about more than 9 months; and that he is previous non-- convict.
4. Conversely the learned State Counsel has opposed the application.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced from both the sides with the help of the available record.
6. He allegedly has snatched forcibly bicycle from the aforesaid son of the complainant and had subjected him to violence and also shut him in a culvert. The narration of the F.I.R. Reflects that he was not known either to the complainant or his aforesaid son. His name was told to them by the two persons mentioned in the F.I.R. Namely Fateh Muhammad and Abdul Rehman's. It has been contended from his, side that there is dispute over Ahata between them and his father and so they have wrongly given his name to the complainant and in such circumstances holding of his identification test was necessary. Admittedly, he was not put to any identification test. So, the question of his involvement in the instant case in the above circumstances seriously needs consideration. His case, thus, would be covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about more than nine months and is previous non- convict.
8. In these circumstances, I accept this application and admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.