11/28/23, 10:02 AM Case Judgement

P L D 2008 Lahore 470

B e f o re Muhammad Akram Qureshi, J

WALAYAT---Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE---Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4232-B of 2008, decided on 4th June, 2008.

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

----S. 497(2)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.22---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395/412---Bail, grant
of---Further inquiry---Case property, identification of---Farmas (stolen property) were never placed before
complainant to ascertain its ownership and establish that recovered Farmas were stolen property---No evidence
was available showing participation of accused in the alleged dacoity and that recovered Farmas were stolen
property and that the Farmas were owned by complainant---Effect---Investigating Officer was legally required
to mix Farmas in some others and had got those identified from complainant but such exercise was never
undertaken and thus there was no evidence to establish that recovered Farmas were stolen property---Such was
gross negligence on the part of Investigating Officer---High Court noted it with great concern that cases of
Qatl-e-Amd, robbery and dacoity were being spoiled by adopting such mode and habitual dacoits or robbers
were being let off---High Court further observed that it was a serious affair and senior officers of police
department were keeping their eyes shut over such serious matters---Prosecution branch was also silent on
such serious matter---Absence of such necessary evidence had put the case against accused within the domain
of further inquiry---No reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused had committed offence under Ss.
395/412, P.P.C.---Bail was granted in circumstances.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 395 & 412---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service
(Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006), Ss.10 & 12---Dacoity and dishonestly receiving
property stolen in the commission of dacoity---Identification parade---Procedure of arrangements---Guidelines
by High Court---Procedure for making arrangements for identification parade easier was prescribed by High
Court for circulation to Prosecutor General, Advocate-General, Additional Inspector General of Police
(Investigation) and all the Sessions Judges of the Province, who shall pursue the same and circulate it to all
concerned and subordinate courts and offices for appropriate legal action and observance.

Following are the guidelines prescribed by the High Court to make the arrangements of identification parade
easier and to be sent to Prosecutor-General Punjab, Advocate-General Punjab, Addl. Inspector General of
Police (Investigation) Punjab and all Sessions Judges of Punjab, who shall pursue the same and circulate it to
all concerned and subordinate courts and offices for appropriate legal action and observe that:

(i) In case of unknown assailant the arrested accused must be put to identification parade.

(ii) Recovered articles must be got identified from the owners.

(iii) Recording of baseless statement mentioning the complainant and eye-witnesses have come to know the
names of assailants through reliable source should be avoided.

(iv) The mature and well-versed Investigating Officers should be deputed to investigate the cases. In this
respect the educated persons must be given preference.

(v) The process of holding the identification parade in jail should be made easier and in this respect
unnecessary hurdles should not be created in the ways of the Investigating Officers.

(vi) The process of scrutinizing the challan should be reformed and cases of deficient evidence should not be
forwarded to courts.

www.plsbeta.com/LawOnline/law/casedescription.asp?casedes=2008L98 1/4
11/28/23, 10:02 AM Case Judgement

(vii) Illegalities and irregularities committed by the Police Officials should be brought to the notice of higher
Police Officials and strict departmental as well as criminal action under the relevant provisions of law shall be
taken against them.

(viii) The Prosecutor-General and Prosecutors are reminded their powers under sections 10/12 of the Punjab
Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006. It is expected that in future they
shall make use of these powers effectively to cure above mentioned illegalities/irregularities.

Rana Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.

Adeel Aqil Mirza, D.P.-G. along with M. Akram S.-I. for the State.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, J.---Walayat son of Jewan, petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case
F.I.R. No. 518 of 2006, dated 14-11-2006 registered under section 380, P.P.C. at Police Station Manawala
District Nankana Sahib. Later on sections 395/412, P.P.C. were added during investigation.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has concluded that the instant case was
registered on 14-11-2006. After four months a supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on
11-3-2007 by Ibrar Khan, A.S.-I./Investigating Officer, stating that he came to know that the petitioner and 16
others had committed the offence of dacoity in his factory. This statement did not disclose the source from
which the complainant came to know about the involvement of petitioner and others. On 14-3-2007, Ibrar
Khan, A.S.-I. mentioned in case Diary No.11 that Muhammad Saleem and seven others have been arrested by
the Factory Area Police in case F.I.R. No. 1149 of 2006, dated 11-12-2006 registered under section 412, P.P.C.
On 14-4-2007 Ibrar Khan A.S.-I. wrote Diary No.22 mentioning that the petitioner and three others were
arrested in case F.I.R. No. 1435 of 2006, dated 28-10-2006 registered under sections 395/412, P.P.C. at Police
Station Tandalianwala. He submitted an application of the transfer of the said accused from District Jail Jhang
to his Police Station. He formally arrested the said accused on 15-6-2007 and brought him to his policestation.
He never got them identified from eye-witnesses by means of an identification parade held in jail. On 22-6-
2007, the petitioner made a disclosure about the recovery of "Farmas" and a consequence of said disclosure
got recovered four "Farmas" from behind a petrol pump, which were taken into possession by the police. Said
Farmas were never placed before the complainant to ascertain its ownership and establish that recovered
"Farmas" were the stolen property. The stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no evidence
exists showing petitioner's participation in the alleged dacoity and that the recovered Farmas were stolen
property and that these "Farmas" were owned by the complainant and that absence of above evidence puts the
case against the petitioner within the domain of further inquiry and that reasonable grounds do not exist to
believe that the petitioner has committed the offence under sections 395/412, P.P.C.

3. Resultantly, the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail. The petition is allowed and
the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lac rupees) with two sureties in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

4. Before parting with this order this Court shows its concern over the negligent investigation conducted by
Ibrar Khan, A.S.-I. Instant case was registered against unknown assailants. Walayat and his co-accused were
apprehended by the police in some other cases. They were already behind the bars from where Ibrar Khan,
A.S.-I. secured their custody. In order to establish participation of the petitioner and his co-accused in the
present dacoity, holding of Identification parade was necessary. The said Investigating Officer intentionally
avoided to get arranged the important event of the identification parade of the accused and thus caused
disappearance of important evidence of ocular account of this case. He intentionally did so to help the accused.
Dacoity of Farmas was committed in this case, some of the Farmas were statedly recovered by the said A.S.-I.
from the alleged custody of the accused. The Investigating Officer was required by law to ascertain whether
the Farmas recovered by him were the articles looted from the factory of the complainant during the above
mentioned incident. For this purpose the Investigating Officer was legally required to mix these Farmas in
some others and get those identified from the complainant but this exercise was never done, and thus at present
there is no evidence to establish that recovered Farmas are stolen property. It is a gross negligence on the part
of the Investigating Officer.

www.plsbeta.com/LawOnline/law/casedescription.asp?casedes=2008L98 2/4
11/28/23, 10:02 AM Case Judgement

5. Ibrar Khan, A.S.-I. is guilty of gross negligence of his duty and causing disappearance of evidence. A
departmental inquiry must be held in his case and the action taken be intimated to this Court through its
Additional Registrar (Judicial).

6. It has become a general tendency in Punjab that in cases of unknown accused the Investigating Officer
intentionally avoid to get arranged the identification parade after their arrest. They had made it routine to
record supplementary statements of the eye-witnesses containing the fact that they had come to know from
reliable source that the persons mentioned in their statements are their accused. They do not mention the
source of said information. On the basis of these baseless statements they effect the arrest of the accused
persons considering the above mentioned statements as substitution of valuable evidence of identification
parade, which is factually incorrect. After recoveries they send the accused to judicial lock up. Even the legal
source of converting these recoveries to stolen property is being ignored, which is the height of the negligence
of duty on the part of the Investigating Officer.

7. The cases of Qatl-i-Amd, robbery and dacoity are being spoiled by adopting the above stated mode and the
habitual dacoits or robbers are being let off. It is a serious affair. The senior officers of the police department
are keeping their eyes shut over this serious matter. The prosecution branch is also silent on this serious matter.

8. The Deputy Prosecutor-General complains that the Police Officers face lot of difficulties in the Courts of
learned Magistrate and sometimes it become almost impossible to get arrange the identification parades,
therefore, a direction may also be issued to the learned Sessions Judges to make the procedure of arrangement
of identification parade easier.

9. Let this order be sent to Prosecutor-General Punjab, Advocate-General Punjab, Additional Inspector-General
of Police (Investigation) Punjab and all learned Sessions Judges of Punjab, who shall pursue the same and
circulate it to all concerned and subordinate Courts and offices for appropriate legal action and observe that:--

(i) In case of unknown assailant the arrested accused must be put to identification parade.
???????????
(ii) Recovered articles must be got identified from the owners.

(iii) Recording of baseless statement mentioning the complainant and eye-witnesses have come to
know the names of assailants through reliable source should be avoided.

(iv) The mature and well-versed Investigating Officers should be deputed to investigate the cases. In
this respect the educated persons must be given preference.

(v) The process of holding the identification parade in jail should be made easier and in this respect
unnecessary hurdles should not be created in the ways of the Investigating Officers.

(vi) The process of scrutinizing the challan should be reformed and cases of deficient evidence should
not be forwarded to Courts.

(vii) Illegalities and irregularities committed by the Police Officials should be brought to the notice of
higher Police Officials and strict departmental as well as criminal action under the relevant provisions
of law shall be taken against them.

(viii) The Prosecutor-General and Prosecutors are reminded their powers under sections 10/12 of the
Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006. It is expected
that in future they shall make use of these powers effectively to cure above mentioned
illegalities/irregularities.

M.H./W-
12/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Bail granted.

www.plsbeta.com/LawOnline/law/casedescription.asp?casedes=2008L98 3/4
11/28/23, 10:02 AM Case Judgement

www.plsbeta.com/LawOnline/law/casedescription.asp?casedes=2008L98 4/4