MUHAMMAD ASIM alias BHOLA vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought confirmation of his ad interim pre-arrest bail in a matter involving allegations of robbery. During the hearing, the complainant stated before the court that he was waylaid and deprived of his property, but he was unable to identify the assailant and explicitly stated that the petitioner was not among the persons who waylaid him. Considering these circumstances, the court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry as to whether the petitioner was involved in the alleged crime or if someone else was responsible. Consequently, the court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner, subject to his continued participation in the police investigation. The key principle laid down is that where the complainant exonerates the accused by stating the accused was not present among the culprits, a case for further inquiry is made out, warranting confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the complainant states that the accused was not among the perpetrators?
- Does an inability of the complainant to identify the petitioner in a robbery case constitute a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
ORDER
' The petitioner is here on ad interim pre-arrest bail vide order of this Court dated 11-6-2003.
2. On the other hand, we have the complainant and Asghar Ali, A.S.-I. The complainant states that he was waylaid and deprived of his property through robbery but he was unable to identify the assailant. According to him, the petitioner was not the person amongst those who had waylaid him.
3. After what the complainant has stated before this Court, this is a case of further inquiry whether the petitioner was a robber or there was someone else.
4. Under the circumstances, ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner is confirmed. But he anyway is asked to continue joining investigation.