TAHIR WASEEM vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Tahir Waseem, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 382, 452, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, having been denied relief by lower forums. The petitioner argued he was not named in the F.I.R., no incriminating evidence connected him to the crime, and his physical description differed from that of the culprit described in the F.I.R. Conversely, the State contended that the petitioner's custodial statement led to the recovery of stolen ornaments from goldsmiths, who admitted to purchasing them. Upon review, the Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., the physical description discrepancy remained unresolved, and the prosecution failed to provide specific details regarding the weight and character of the recovered ornaments to link them conclusively to the alleged theft. Holding that these factors necessitated further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the prosecution's case required deeper investigation before trial, thus entitling the petitioner to the concession of bail.
- Does a discrepancy between the physical description of the culprit in the F.I.R. and the accused's actual physical appearance constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is the recovery of stolen property from a third party sufficient to deny bail when the accused was not named in the F.I.R. and the identity of the property is not clearly established?
- When does a case require 'further inquiry' under the law of bail?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' Petitioner Tahir Waseem who is charged in a case registered against him under sections 382/452/506, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,460 dated 7-8-2000, Police Station Cantt., D.I. Khan, when failed to get the concession of bail from the lower forums asked therefor by moving this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not been directly charged in the F.I.R.; that nothing incriminating came forth to connect the petitioner with the crime, notwithstanding the fact that he remained in police custody for a good number of days and that the description as to height and constitution of the culprit given in the F.I.R. Does not tally with the description of the petitioner given in his card of arrest as according to the former he was tall with mediocre build up while according to the latter he was of mediocre height and stout body.
3. The learned Deputy Advocate-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the fact that the petitioner while being in custody led the police to the shops of goldsmiths where he had sold the stolen ornaments, prima facie, connects him with the crime particularly when the goldsmiths by admitting the purchase of the ornaments tendered an amount in cash equivalent to the price of the ornaments to the police.
4. I have gone through the record and carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. How did the Investigating Agency come to know about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime when he was not named in the F.I.R, and how the petitioner could be connected with the crime he is charged with when the description of the culprit as to height and constitution does not tally with that of the petitioner as given in the card of his arrest and how in the absence of any detail about the kind, weight and character of ornaments it could be said that the ornaments sold to the goldsmiths were the stolen ornaments are the questions which require further enquiry.
' For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail if he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, D.I. Khan who is to ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.