' The petitioner has applied for grant of bail in a case registered against him and others vide F.I.R.
No,187, dated 23-12-1996 for an offence under section 392 of the P.P.C. At Police Station Mochi Gate, Lahore.
2. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R., three accused persons, armed with Mouzers committed robbery in the United Bank Ltd. Alamgir Market Branch, Lahore and looted an amount of Rs,4,75,071.58 The petitioner was arrested on 18-6-1997 and a sum of Rs,12,350 was recovered from him. Again another sum of Rs,6,000 was recovered from him on 9-7-1997. The two other co- accused (Mansoor-ul-Haq and Mian Jahangir) were arrested and sums of Rs,26,150 and 9,550 were recovered from them respectively. In the identification parade held on 30-6-1997, the petitioner was duly identified by Nisar Ahmad, complainant the Bank Manager, Nazir Ahmad, Cashier and Bashir Ahmad, Naib Qasid.
3. The petitioner's learned counsel has strenuously urged that the alleged identification parade was of no use because it was held about 12 days after the petitioner's arrest. In this connection, he relies on the following judgments:--
(1) Akhtar Muhammad v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 2423.
(2) Allah Warayo v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 645.
(3) Dildar v. The State 1995 PCLU 1993.
' He further urged that the ingredients of the offence under section 392 of the P.P.C. Were not made out because there was nothing to show that force was actually used or that the P.Ws. Were put to fear of death or hurt. In this connection, he relies on the following judgments:--
(1) Sheo Murar and others v. State AIR 1955 All.
128.
(2) Bilal Ahmad and 4 others v. The State PLD 1994 Lah.
141.
(3) Muhammad Ibrahim and others v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 1281
4. On the other hand the learned A.A.-G. Has opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner was duly, identified by the P.Ws.; that incriminating recoveries were made from him and that, prima facie, an offence under section 392, P.P.C. Was made out.
5. At the time of occurrence, the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons like mouzers.
One of the accused had initially put the duty constable to fear of hurt by putting a mouzer on his flank. Then the accused managed to snatch his rifle alongwith the magazine. Thereafter, the accused persons confined the Bank Staff and the constable in the Manager's cabin. One of the accused aimed his mouzer ap the cashier which was sufficient to put him to fear of death or hurt and the other accused robbed an amount of Rs,4,75,071.58 from the Cashier's cabin. Thus, prima facie, the accused persons had not only put the Bank Staff including the duty constable to fear of death or hurt but actually confined the Bank Staff and the constable in the Manager's cabin. Prima facie, they appear to be guilty of an offence under section 392 of the P.P.C.
6. The judgments cited by the petitioner's learned counsel in support of his contention that an offence under section 392 of the P.P.C. Was not made out, are of no help to him. It was clearly observed in the said judgments that where no force or show of force was found and the accused did not put the victim or the complainant party in fear of death, hurt or wrongful confinement then an offence under section 392 could not be said to have been committed. In the case of Bilal Ahmad, it was held:-- "The definition of robbery contemplates that an accused should from very beginning have the intention to deprive another person of the property and to achieve that end, either hurt is caused or a person is placed under wrongful restraint or it must be actually found that victim was put in fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful confinement."
In the case of Muhammad Ibrahim etc. It was held that conviction under section 392 of the P.P.C.
Could not be sustained when there was nothing in evidence to substantiate that car in question had been stolen by convicts either by causing death or hurt etc. Or even under fear of such a damage. In the case of Sheo Murar and others, the accused persons neither used force nor show of force to cause death, hurt or fear of wrongful restraint. They were detected at the spot and in order to escape away they made use of show of force. Under these circumstances, it was held that the offence of robbery as defined under section 390 of the P.P.C. Was not made out. In the present case, show of force was made by the accused persons and one of the accused had put a mower on the flank of the duty constable. This action, per se, was sufficient to cause fear of death or hurt in the mind of the duty constable. The constable Was deprived of his gun by the accused and then, what to speak of fear of wrongful restraint, the constable and the Bank Staff were wrongfully confined in the Manager's cabin. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner appears to have committed the offence under section 392 of the P.P.C. Which falls within the prohibition of section 497 of the Cr.P.C.
7. As regards the identification parade, it is true that ordinarily it should be held promptly and without unnecessary delay so as to inspire confidence. During their confinement in the police lock- up or the jail, the complainant party or the P.Ws. Must not be allowed to see the accused before the identification parade. Moreover, if they are required to be produced before the Magistrate for the purposes of grant of remand or routine appearance in the Court their faces must be duly covered.
The question whether the delay was caused deliberately with ulterior motives of providing an opportunity to the complainant party and the P.Ws. To see the accused in police lock-up, jail or before the Magistrate and whether such an opportunity was actually provided to the complainant party and the P.Ws. Is one of fact which can be answered on the basis of available record at the bail stage and properly determined at the trial after recording evidence. Therefore, the question whether sufficient grounds exist to erode credibility of the identification parade depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the Police file shows that after his arrest the petitioner and his co-accused were produced before the Magistrate for remand but at the c time -they were taken out and produced in the Court their faces were duly covered. The application for conducting identification parade was made on 20-6-1997 but on the said date learned Ilaqa Magistrate was not available. On 21-6-1997 learned Magistrate fixed 27-6-1997 for conducting identification parade and the Robkar was sent to the Camp Jail for the said purpose.
However, due to his other official commitments, the Magistrate could not conduct identification parade and again fixed the date as 30-6-1997. On the said date, identification parade was conducted in which the petitioner was identified by Nisar Ahmad, Bank Manager, Nazir Ahmad, Cashier and Bashir Ahmad, NaibQasid of the Bank. It is not the petitioner's case that after being arrested he was shown to the P.Ws. Either inside or outside the jail so as to cast doubt on the identification parade. In fact, in the bail petition not a word has been said to question the legality or correctness of the identification parade. At the time of occurrence, the faces of the accused persons were not muffled and they were seen by the Bank Staff clearly. That is why their personal descriptions were fully stated in the F.I.R. The petitioner was identified by Syed Nisar Ahmad, the Bank Manager, Nazir Ahmad, Cashier and Bashir Ahmad, Naib-Qasid of the Bank. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, delay simplicitor, in conducting the identification parade is not sufficient to discard or doubt it. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners' learned counsel proceed on their own peculiar facts. In the case of Akhtar Muhammad, identification parade was held with a delay of 7 days and during the said period the accused persons were taken out of custody on two occasions for the purposes of remand. It was not mentioned whether at the time of their production before the Magistrate their faces were covered or not. In the present case, the accused persons were taken out of the Police lock-up only once and as per the record, their faces were duly covered. In the case of Allah Warayo, identification parade was held with a delay of 8 days and ,there was no explanation for delay in holding the identification parade. In the present case, the explanation for the delay is available on the record. In the case of Dildar, the complainant had not given the description of the accused person in the F.I.R. Although the incident had taken place at day time and faces of the accused were open. Moreover, there was no explanation for delay in conducting the identification parade. In the present case, the description of personal features of each accused is duly given in the F.I.R. And some explanation for delay in conducing the identification parade is also available on the record. An identification parade cannot be doubted merely on whimsical or imaginary grounds. If an accused person wants to challenge the result of the test identification parade he must specifically raise a ground in the bail petition and state the facts and circumstances casting doubts on its veracity.
8. It may be clarified at the end that the observations made in the order are purely tentative in nature and will not stand in the way of the Trial Court in coming to its own independent conclusions in the light of the evidence brought on the record.
9. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed with the above observations. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.