MAZHAR IQBAL vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Mazhar Iqbal, in connection with FIR No. 271 registered under Section 398 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was part of a group that trespassed into the complainant's house and assaulted him. The petitioner contended that he was not named in the FIR, his name appeared only in a supplementary statement recorded one month after the incident, he was not subjected to an identification parade, and no recovery was made from him. The Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, no identification parade was conducted, and the delay in naming him in the supplementary statement warranted serious consideration regarding its evidentiary value. Finding no recovery and noting the petitioner's status as a previous non-convict who had been incarcerated for six months, the Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail.
- Does the absence of an identification parade for an accused not named in the FIR justify the grant of bail?
- Is a case open to further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused is named only in a delayed supplementary statement?
- What is the impact of the lack of recovery on a bail application in a case involving alleged house trespass?
- Section 398, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner Mazhar Iqbal through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 271 dated 07.08.2003 under Section 398 PPC registered with Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per FIR is that on the night between 6/7-08-2003 at about 01:45 a.m. five unknown persons have scaled over the wall of the complainant's house and tress passed into the same and three out of them awake him up while two persons remained standing with his wife Mst. Zamurd. The three persons gave him blows with iron rod and fists. He received injury on the left side of his nose. On their alarm, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Ejaz were attracted to the spot and on seeing them they fled away. They did not make any demand from the complainant during the incident.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he is not named in the FIR; that his name has been figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 06.09.2003 and the same was after about one month of the alleged incident; that he was not put to any identification test; that the complainant's supplementary statement carries no value in the eyes of law; that nothing was recovered from his possession; and that no independent witness has supported the incident.
4. Conversely the learned State counsel has opposed the petition.
5. I have considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The fact remains that he is not named in the FIR . The fact also remains that he was not put to any identification parade/test. His name for the first time has figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 06.09.2003. It , thus, was about one month after the alleged incident. The question of evidentiary value of such statement requires serious consideration.
7. Admittedly no recovery of any kind was effected from him. His case, therefore, is open to further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars for the lat about six months and a previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.
9. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds 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.