P L D 2012 Lahore 415 (PLP)
NADEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2012 Lahore 415 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NADEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2012 Lahore 415 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2012 Lahore 415 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2012 Lahore 415 (PLP) (NADEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Basharat Ali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392 & 411
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22
Robbery, dishonestly receiving property stolen
Identification of accused through a photograph instead of an identification parade
Contentions of accused were that he was not nominated in the F.I.R. and was involved in the offence on basis of supplementary statement of the complainant, which was recorded after one month and eleven days of the incident; that no identification parade was held and accused was allegedly recognized by the complainant on basis of a photograph; that alleged recovery was planted upon the accused, and that accused was not required for investigation anymore
Accused was neither named in the F.I.R. nor any identification parade was held to connect him with the commission of the alleged offence
Identification of accused through a photograph could not be a substitute for identification through an identification parade
Mere involvement of accused in other cases did not debar him from bail, if he was otherwise entitled for the same
Registration of F.I.Rs. against the accused was no ground to refuse bail unless same were accompanied by conviction orders
Alleged recovery of weapon at the instance of the accused was not significant, as weapon was allegedly not used during the occurrence
Evidentiary value of recovered mobile phone and cash could be determined at the trial
Case of accused fell within the purview of S.497(2), Cr.P.C, and required further inquiry
Bail petition of accused was accepted and he was admitted to bail.
Art. 22
Identification of accused through photographs/pictures as a substitute for an identification parade
Person's right perception of an object
Mere photograph could not be a valid substitute for establishing identity of an accused through identification parade as required under Art.22 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984
Person's right perception of an object, seen by him depended upon the criteria, (i) nearness to the object; (ii) capacity to see with distinctness; (iii) required light, and (iv) the three dimensional effect of the object
Identification through snap/pictures did not properly meet such criteria.
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392 & 411
Registration of other F.I.Rs. against the accused
Effect
Registration of other F.I.Rs. against the accused was no ground to refuse bail unless same were accompanied by conviction orders.
Judgment & Decree
ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.
The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.302 of 2011 dated 11-9-2011, under sections 392/411, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Model Town, Lahore.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as contained in the F.I.R. is that two unknown persons riding on a motorcycle intercepted the complainant and snatched purse, mobile (Nokia) along with Rs.43,000 on gunpoint. The complainant got recorded his supplementary statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 22-10-2011 wherein he named the petitioner along with Muhammad Usman alias Baba.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. and involved only on the basis of supplementary statement got recorded after one month and 11 days; that no identification parade was conducted despite their description in F.I.R. and the petitioner was allegedly recognized by the complainant only on the basis of photographs; that the alleged recovery was planted upon the petitioner; that the petitioner is in the judicial lock up since 21-11-2011 and is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of post arrest bail.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of post arrest bail by submitting that the petitioner is known as adverse record holder. Twenty F.I.Rs. were registered against him, some of which are of similar nature; that the recovery of .30 bore pistol, Nokia phone and currency notes was effected against him; that the offence with which the petitioner is charged is increasing day by day with an alarming pace creating panic in the minds of people at large. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of post arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, with their able assistance.
6. Neither the petitioner named in the F.I.R. nor identification parade was ever held connecting him with the commission of alleged offence. Mere photograph cannot be valid substitute for establishing identity of the accused through identification parade as required under Article 22 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. It is well settled that a person's right perception of an object seen by him depends, inter alia, on (i) nearness to the object: (ii) capacity to see with distinctness (iii) required light (iv) the three dimensional effect of the object. Therefore, viewed from that perceptive, identification through snaps/pictures does not properly meet the above said criteria. Reliance can be had to Zulfiqar Ali v. The State (1991 PCr.LJ 1125 (D.B)). Mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases does not debar him from bail, if he is otherwise entitled. Only registration of F.I.Rs. is no ground to refuse bail unless accompanied by conviction orders. The alleged recovery of pistol at the instance of the petitioner is not of much significance, as it was allegedly not used during the occurrence. The evidentiary value of recovery of Nokia mobile and currency notes will be determined at trial. In these circumstances, case of the petitioner falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and requires further inquiry.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. M.W.A./N-26/L Bail granted.