MUHAMMAD ARSHID vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Muhammad Arshid seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 805 registered at Police Station Sadar, Kasur for offences under sections 458 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the delayed FIR, lack of initial nomination, absence of recovery, and belated implication through a supplementary statement. The court held that the case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the continued custody of the petitioner would serve no beneficial purpose. The petition was consequently allowed, admitting the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing requisite security bonds.
- Does a belated FIR and lack of initial nomination justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Whether the absence of recovery and test identification parade warrants further inquiry into the guilt of an accused under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can implication through a belated supplementary statement in police custody serve as sole ground to deny bail when no recovery is effected?
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Muhammad Arshid petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,805 registered at Police Station Sadar, Kasur on 27-12-2001 for offences under sections 458/380, P. P. C .
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a delay of about 24/25 days and even in that belated F.I.R. The present petitioner had not been nominated as one of the perpetrators of the alleged offences. It is not disputed that no recovery of any sort has been affected from the petitioner in connection with the present case and no test identification parade has been held in this case so as to positively implicate the petitioner in the alleged offences. 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 on 23-1-2002, i,e, about 27 days after registration of the F.I.R. And about a month and a half after the alleged incident and such implication was based only upon an alleged identification of the petitioner by the complainant in police custody. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above 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 one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.