AURANG ZAIB And Another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners in a case registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of robbery and possession of stolen property. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite the prosecution's claims of their involvement based on a supplementary statement recorded over a year after the incident and the alleged recovery of a single cotton bale. The Court held that because the petitioners were not named in the initial First Information Report, no identification parade was conducted, and the supplementary statement naming them was significantly delayed, the prosecution's case required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioners to bail, establishing the principle that where the evidentiary link between the accused and the crime is tenuous due to the absence of identification proceedings and delayed naming in the investigation, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.
- Does the absence of an identification parade for accused persons not named in the FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a supplementary statement recorded more than a year after the incident be considered sufficient to deny bail?
- Is the alleged recovery of a single item of stolen property sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of bail?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioners seek bail in case F.I.R. No.7 of 1999 dated 8-1-1999, under section 395/412, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Saddar, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.
2. Brief facts as given in the F.I.R. Are that the complainant is a Driver of Truck bearing Registration No.3788-LHP owned by one Muhammad Anwar. On 7-1-1999 at about 3-00 a.m. He loaded 100 bales of cotton from Mustafa Cotton Ginners, Chishtian for Bhai Pharoo/Dina Nath. Muhammad Shafique second driver and Muhammad Akram P.Ws. Were also with the complainant. When they reached near Adda Chak No. 17/11-R, a truck of Carvan Goods Company overtook their truck and stopped in front of them. Four persons whose description is given in the F.I.R. Came out of that truck, armed with various fire-arms, of loaded the complainant party from their truck and took them to a distance of 2-1/2 acres. One of them snatched Rs.9,000 from the complainant and made them to sit there whole night up to 3-45 a.m. Thereafter, the complainant party went to a nearby Cotton Factory and informed the truck owner on telephone and thereafter the instant F.I.R. Was recorded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners are not named in the F.I.R.; that no identification parade was carried out; that no recovery from the petitioners has been effected and that some other cases stand registered against Aurangzeb petitioner, but he is on bail in all the cases.
4. Learned A.A.-G., on the other hand, has opposed this application by contending that Aurangzeb petitioner is involved in a number of identical cases of theft and robbery; that the challan in the instant case has been sent up to the trial Court; that one cotton bale was recovered from the petitioners alongwith their co-accused. It is further submitted that petitioners were involved in the instant case on the supplementary statement of the complainant and the P. W s. Made by them on 1-5-2001, wherein they had nominated the present accused.
5. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. No identification parade was conducted.
The supplementary statement of the complainant and P.Ws. Was recorded after about 1-1/4 years.
The alleged recovery of one cotton bale out of 100 and that too on the pointation of four persons does not connect the petitioners with the commission of crime. In these circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case of further inquiry. They are accordingly admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.