NIZAMUDDIN and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Nizamuddin and others, who were charged in an F.I.R. regarding the alleged robbery of a motorcycle and assault on the complainant and his cousin. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail, given the procedural irregularities in the investigation. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, finding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court noted significant deficiencies in the investigation, specifically the failure to mention the motorcycle's number in the F.I.R., the delay of five days in conducting the identification test without a valid explanation, and the failure to maintain the required ratio of dummies during the identification parade. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that these lapses, combined with the State's concession, warranted the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that procedural failures in identification parades, such as improper dummy ratios and unexplained delays, coupled with investigative omissions, constitute valid grounds for granting bail on the basis of further inquiry.
- Does an unexplained delay in conducting an identification parade constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
- Is the failure to maintain the prescribed ratio of dummies to accused persons in an identification parade a valid basis for granting bail?
- When the State concedes that a case warrants further inquiry, is the court justified in granting bail to the accused?
ORDER
1. ' Heard arguments of Mr. Muhammad Sharif Qazi and Mr. Ali Azher Tunio learned Assistant Advocate-General, the latter conceded to grant of bail.
2. ' The allegations contained in the F.I.R. Are that complainant Abdul Ghafoor, who is a Councillor and his cousin Niaz Hussain, a police constable, were riding a motorcycle when they were intercepted by three persons who tried to snatch the motorcycle, but they resisted. Niaz Hussain was given blows with butts of pistol and Lathis and fire was also made which hit him and then the motorcycle was taken away. The complainant lodged F.I.R. On 7-7-2002 at Police Station Khairpur Nathan Shah.
3. It is the case of prosecution that later on, the police of Rukkan Police Station had an encounter with the applicants and an unidentified person and the motorcycle was secured from their possession.
4. Identification test was held after five days thereof, wherein the applicants were picked out by the complainant and Police Constable Niaz Hussain.
5. 'The main contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the number of motorcycle has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. Of this case, although the applicant is a Councillor and Niaz Hussain is a Police Constable. Secondly, the motorcycle is alleged to have been secured in an encounter on 12-7-2002 by Rukkan Police but no weapon has been secured from applicants. The identification test was delayed by five days for no legitimate reason. He further contended that in all, nine dummies were mixed with two accused persons which is much below the standard ratio of dummies to be mixed with the accused. Learned counsel relied on Ghulam Nabi v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 1852 and Shafique Ahmed v. State 2002 PCr.LJ 518.
6. ' Mr. Ali Azher Tunio learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case make a ground for further inquiry.
7. ' I have considered all these contentions carefully. Both the precedents cited at bar support the bail plea. One of the P.Ws., is a police man and the identification test was delayed for five days for which no plausible reason has been stated. The ratio of dummies to accused should have been 9:1 but for no valid reason this aspect has been ignored. On perusal of material placed on record, I am convinced that the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants which are not opposed on behalf of the State, bring the case of applicants within the purview of further enquiry.
8. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. The applicants may be released on furnishing one surety each in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.