Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Misc. No.46188-B of 2021
Waris Versus The State, etc.
S. No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge, and that of
order/ order/ Parties or counsel, where necessary
Proceeding Proceeding
12.08.2021 Ch. Mahmood Alam, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Nisar Ahmad Virk & Hafiz Asghar Ali, Deputy
Prosecutors General for the State with Akram SI with
record.
Through this petition filed under Section 497 Cr.P.C.,
petitioner Waris seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR
No.547/2020, dated 18.08.2020, registered under Sections 392,
395, 412, 411 PPC with Police Station Bhikhi, District
Sheikhupura.
2. The brief facts, as narrated in the crime report, are that on
29.07.2020, at 08.30 p.m. four unknown accused persons
committed robbery of cash amount of Rs.95,000/-, mobile
phone, motorcycle and other documents from the complainant.
Later on, the petitioner along with another was arrayed as an
accused by the complainant through his supplementary
statement recorded on 18.08.2020.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Alleged occurrence took place on 29.07.2020 and crime
report was lodged on 18.08.2020 after an inordinate delay
against four unknown accused persons, for which no plausible
explanation had been rendered by the complainant.
Astonishingly, petitioner was nominated in this case through
supplementary statement on the same day i.e. 18.08.2020,
without disclosing the source of information. In a case where
accused is not nominated in FIR rather nominated through
supplementary statement without disclosure of source of
Crl. Misc. No.46188-B of 2021 (2)
information, it becomes matter of further inquiry. It was held by
the Honorable Supreme Court in Naeem Akhtar’s case1as infra:
“4. …. It is an admitted fact that name of the petitioner
is not mentioned in the F.I.R. but his name was included
in the list of accused in supplementary statement. There
is no explanation available in this regard, therefore, the
case of the petitioner falls under the category of further
inquiry…”
This view was further fortified by Abid Ali @ Ali’s case2,
wherein it was held that:
“The learned State Counsel read the supplementary
statement of the complainant recorded in the case but
this statement did not disclose as to how the complainant
came to know the name of the appellant when in fact she
was neither known to the appellant nor she disclosed his
name in the F.I.R. lodged in the case. We are, therefore,
of the view that at this stage, it cannot be said that the
accused is reasonably believed to have committed the
offence which fell within the prohibitory clause of section
497, Cr.P.C.”
5. Identification parade of present petitioner was conducted
on 14-09-2020 after his nomination through supplementary
statement on 18.08.2020. Nomination of accused prior to
identification parade, diminishes sanctity of such Test
Identification Parade and its evidentiary value shall be
determined by the trial court. Reliance can be placed on Saadi
Ahmad’s Case.3 As far as recovery of Rs.30,000/- allegedly
affected on the pointing out of petitioner is concerned,
evidentiary value of the same shall be seen by the learned trial
court after recording of evidence. To sum up the discussion,
involvement of the present petitioner through supplementary
statement and that too without mentioning source of
information before the identification parade, brings the case of
the petitioner within the purview of further inquiry as envisaged
by Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Mere registration of few other
criminal cases against the petitioner, without conviction, does
1
1996 SCMR 511
2
2011 SCMR 161
3
2011 YLR 689
Crl. Misc. No.46188-B of 2021 (3)
not disentitle him from the concession of bail, if his case,
otherwise, falls within ambit of further inquiry. The
investigation of this case is complete and his person is no more
required to the police for further investigation.
6. In the light of above, the instant bail petition is allowed
and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one
hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
(ALI ZIA BAJWA)
JUDGE
Approved for Reporting.
*Athar*
