MAQSOOD IFTIKHAR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition filed by Maqsood Iftikhar seeking after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 527 dated 18-11-2002 registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station South Cantt, Lahore. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not named in the F.I.R., was not subjected to an identification parade, and the recovery attributed to him potentially falls under a section not part of the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that since the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. or put to an identification test, and his implication relied on a supplementary statement whose evidentiary value is determined at trial, his case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the alleged recovery at best attracts Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which falls outside the prohibitory clause. The court laid down the principle that absence from the F.I.R. and lack of an identification test, coupled with an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause, makes an accused person a fit case for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused not named in the F.I.R. and not put to an identification test is entitled to post-arrest bail for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the recovery of looted articles attracting Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the evidentiary value of a supplementary statement when considering a post-arrest bail petition?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Maqsood Iftikhar, the petitioner through the instant petition has prayed for after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.527 dated 18-11-2002 under section 392, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, South Cantt.
Lahore.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 18-11-2002 at about 11-30 a.m., the wife and Nauman Wazir, the younger son of the complainant were present in his house. At that time two unknown persons with mousers entered there and they on gun-point snatched the gold ornaments worth Rs.3,00,000, cash amount Rs. 4,000 and prize bonds worth Rs. 30,000 from them and fled away.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falseiy been roped in; that he is not named in the F.I.R.; that he was not put to identification test and so the question of his involvement in the matter is not above doubt; that recovery of some of the looted articles has been shown from him while the same is planted one and even if, the same may be taken true as it is, it would at best attract an offence under section 411, P.P.C. Which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that he is behind the bars for the last about eight months; and that he is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition. He however, has conceded that he was not put to any identification test.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. He (petitioner) is not named in the F.I.R. He was also not put to any identification test. His name has figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 27-11-2002. The evidentiary value of such statement is to be adjudged at trial. Hence his case is open to further inquiry into his guilt. The same, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. As regards the question of recovery of some looted articles from him, the same even if may be taken true, as it is, it would attract an offence under section 411, P.P.C., which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about eight months and previous non-convict.
9. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.