Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860

Section: 394, 411, 337-F(ii)

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 497

Tagline Post-arrest bail—Positive identification of the accused by the injured complainant in a lawful identification parade, corroborated by medical and ballistic evidence, recovery of robbed money, and gravity of armed robbery with firearm injury constitute sufficient grounds to refuse bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C.; disputed questions of fact are matters for trial. ----- Summary The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in FIR No. 226/2025 registered under Sections 394, 411, and 337-F(ii) PPC, arising from an incident of armed robbery in which the complainant was robbed of his iPhone 16 Pro Max, wallet containing Rs.20,000, CNIC, passport copies, and visiting cards, and sustained a firearm injury while attempting to apprehend the assailants. The petitioner contended that he was not nominated in the FIR, had been falsely implicated, and could not have participated in the offence because he had already been arrested in another FIR on the same date. He further argued that the recovery of Rs.20,000 was unreliable as the currency was unmarked, that there were contradictions in the prosecution evidence, the offence occurred during darkness making identification doubtful, and that the case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The prosecution opposed the bail application by submitting that the petitioner was positively identified by the injured complainant during a lawful identification parade, where a specific role was assigned to him as the person who fired the shot causing the complainant's injury. The prosecution further relied upon medical and ballistic evidence, which corroborated the complainant’s version, and pointed out that Rs.20,000, allegedly part of the robbed amount, was voluntarily produced by the petitioner's father, who stated that the petitioner had handed over the money to him on the day of the occurrence. It was further argued that the offence was punishable with imprisonment for life and therefore fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The Court held that at the bail stage only a tentative assessment of the evidence is permissible. It found that although the petitioner was not initially…