MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Mushtaq Ahmad, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.190 registered at Police Station City, Hasilpur, under sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the evidence and disclosures linking him to the alleged robbery. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's complicity under section 392 required further inquiry, the offense under section 411 did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the alleged extra-judicial confession before police was inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and no test identification parade was conducted. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of evidence pointing towards further inquiry and non-applicability of the prohibitory clause warrants the grant of bail, particularly when statutory exceptions and evidentiary inadmissibility weaken the prosecution's case at the pre-trial stage.
- Whether an extra-judicial confession made before police officers is admissible in evidence?
- Does an offense under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the case against him requires further inquiry and no test identification parade has been held?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 38, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
- Article 39, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Mushtaq Ahmad petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.190 registered at Police Station City, Hasilpur for an offence under sections 392/411, P.P.C.
2. The instant case was registered on the written statement of Muhammad Iqbal, Ranger, Officer Forest Department, Hasilpur. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he knew that the complainant carried Rs.90,000 (pay of employees) with him, therefore, the petitioner gave company to the complainant for some time. It is further stated that when the complainant was on his way to his house a motorcycle crossed him and subsequently two persons alighted from the motorcycle, caught hold of the complainant and threatened him of life and snatched Rs.90,000 from the complainant. It is further stated in the F.I.R. That 3rd accused who remained riding on the motorcycle alongwith two other accused tried to escape from the scene of occurrence. However, the complainant raised alarm and started chasing the motorcycle. Incidentally, the motorcycle slipped and in the meanwhile the P.Ws reached the scene of occurrence. The accuses left the motorcycle and rats towards different directions, however, one of the accused namely Muhammad Azeem was apprehended at the spot. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. That the apprehended accused informed the complainant that he was sent by Babar Ali-- accused. It is further stated that Babar Ali had handed over his Motorcycle Registered No.6363-VRE to the accused. The complainant produced motorcycle, a carbine, the cartridges and the apprehended accused before the police officer at the time of registration of case.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 9-6-2002 and allegedly led to the recovery of Rs.60,000 cash from his house on 12-6-2002.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
5. According to F.I.R., the name of the petitioner was disclosed to the complainant by Muhammad Azeem co-accused. After arrest of the petitioner, no test identification parade was held. No incriminating evidence except that of factum of recovery is available against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State has tried to argue that the petitioner had confessed his guilt before the police officers, which, I am afraid, is prima facie, of no avail, as the same is inadmissible in evidence in accordance with Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The allegation qua the petitioner vis-a-vis section 392, P.P.C. Needs further probe and inquiry, while section 411, P.P.C. Does not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not a previous convict. In these circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.