PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 77
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392/411--Post-arrest bail, grant of--Further inquiry--Two unknown persons snatched motorcycle on gun point from complainant--Two days delay in reporting crime--Petitioner not named in FIR--No supplementary statement of complainant--Test of identification was delayed--Identification parade has been held after a considerable delay from arrest of accused--This fact of non-mentioning of features of accused persons in FIR, solely put case of petitioner in ambit of further inquiry and probe--In these circumstances, liability of petitioner for said offences would be determined by trial Court after recourse to evidence, till then case of accused would be within domain of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into petitioner’s guilt as at present, for purpose of connecting petitioner with commission of alleged crime, no substantive piece of evidence is available with prosecution--As regards contention of learned law officer that petitioner is involved in similar nature of cases suffice it to say that there is no conviction on part of petitioner in such cases, therefore, this argument is of no avail to law officer--Even otherwise, investigation is complete--The person of petitioner is no more required by police for further investigation--He is behind bars since his arrest without any progress in trial.
[Para 4, 5 & 6] A, C, D & E
2020 MLD 850, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 25 & 2008 PCr.LJ 1444.
Identification parade--
----Identification parade was held after a delay of 7 days after arrest of accused--This delay creates a lot of doubt regarding identification parade as witnesses had various opportunities to see accused persons. [Para 4] B
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 25.
Mr. Shahid Rafiq Mayo, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. Raheela Shahid, DDPP on behalf of State.
Date of hearing: 18.1.2023.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 77
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
ASAD ISLAM--Petitioner
versus
STATE, etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 79818-B-2022, decided on 18.1.2023.
Order
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1067, dated 18.09.2022, offences under Section 392, 411 PPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Kasur, District Kasur.
2. As per crime report, on 16.09.2022 at about 07:55 p.m, when the complainant was going to his village from Kasur, two unknown accused persons on gun point snatched motorcycle from him.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The occurrence was allegedly committed on 16.09.2022 whereas the same was report to police on 18.09.2022 after inordinate delay of two days. Admittedly, the petitioner is not named in the FIR. There is also no supplementary statement of the complainant nominating the accused in this case yet he was arrested being suspect on 28.09.2022 and thereafter he was subjected to the test of identification parade on 05.10.2022. The complainant has mentioned the joint role in FIR and has not mentioned the features of any of the accused persons in the FIR. It has been held by learned division Bench of this Court in case titled “Hafiz Imran alias Abbas alias Hamza vs. The State” (2020 MLD 850) that “if no specific role of any assailant including the accused/appellant was mentioned in written complaint and FIR then deposition of any specific role of any assailant or appellant/accused by any witness during identification parade was of no evidentiary value”. Furthermore, as is obvious from the record, the identification parade has been held after a considerable delay from the arrest of the accused and it has been held in latest case law titled “Yaqoob alias Qoobi v. The State” (PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 25) that “... identification parade was held after a delay of 7 days after arrest of accused. This delay creates a lot of doubt regarding identification parade as witnesses had various opportunities to see accused persons ...” Therefore, this fact of non-mentioning of features of accused persons in FIR, solely put case of the petitioner in the ambit of further inquiry and probe. In these circumstances, liability of petitioner for the said offences would be determined by the learned trial Court after recourse to evidence, till then case of accused would be within the domain of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into the petitioner’s guilt as at present, for the purpose of connecting the petitioner with the commission of alleged crime, no substantive piece of evidence is available with the prosecution.
5. As regards contention of learned law officer that petitioner is involved in similar nature of cases suffice it to say that there is no conviction on the part of the petitioner in such cases, therefore, this argument is of no avail to the learned law officer. Reliance is made upon Jafar Hussain alias Jojo v. The State (2008 P.Cr.L.J. 1444).
6. Even otherwise, the investigation is complete. The person of the petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation. He is behind the bars since his arrest without any progress in the trial.
7. Therefore, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.
(A.A.K.) Petition accepted
0 Comments