Ss. 392 & 411--Bail after arrest, grant of--Incident was reported with unexplained delay of about five days--Petitioner was never put to test identification parade by investigating agency-

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 564

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392 & 411--Bail after arrest, grant of--Incident was reported with unexplained delay of about five days--Petitioner was never put to test identification parade by investigating agency--Accused is not known to complainant or witnesses--Physical custody was not required by investigating agency--Speedy trial is right of accused and no body can be detained in jail by way of advance punishment--Bail allowed.  

                                                                                      [P. 565] A & B

Peer Syed Muhammad Najmul Husnain, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Hassan Mehmood Tareen, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Date of hearing: 22.4.2021.

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 564
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Ahmed Naeem, J.
MUHAMMAD KASHIF--Petitioner
versus
STATE, etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 553-B of 2021, decided on 22.4.2021.

Order

Muhammad Kashif, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case registered vide, FIR No. 502 dated 07.10.2020 at police station Tibba Sultanpur, District Vehari for offences under Sections 392,411, PPC.

2. The complainant reported a robbery against unknown accused. Later on, the petitioner was arrested in this case.

3. Having heard the arguments addressed at the bar and after perusing the record, it was noticed that the occurrence took place on 02.10.2020 but the incident was reported with unexplained delay of about five days i.e. on 07.10.2020. The petitioner was never put to test identification parade by the investigating agency. In such like cases, the accused is not known to the complainant or the witnesses, holding of test identification parade could not be dispensed with because accused who had allegedly committed the robbery had been subsequently found in possession of robbed goods. Reliance in this context can be placed on "Farman Ali Versus The State" (1997 SCMR 971). During the investigation, the recovery stands effected from the petitioner and thus, his physical custody was not required by the investigating agency. The trial has not witnessed any material progress. It is settled by now that the speedy trial is the right of the accused and no body can be detained in jail by way of advance punishment. The petitioner has got no previous conviction at his credit. The continuous and indefinite detention of the petitioner would not serve any purpose to the prosecution. In the circumstances, I am inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner.

4. In view of the above, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed