7. Learned counsel for the complainant has laid much
emphasis on the point that during investigation a motorcycle
and Rs.1,00,000/- has been recovered on the pointation of
the petitioner, which connects him with the commission of
alleged offence. It is important to note that during
investigation on 12.6.2015 the petitioner allegedly got
recovered a motorcycle standing in his residential room and
thereafter on 21.6.2015 he again got recovered Rs.1,00,000/-
from his residential room. It cannot appeal to a man of
common prudence that the petitioner got recovered the
motorcycle and Rs.1,00,000/- from the same place on two
different occasions. Furthermore, perusal of recovery memo
relating to recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- reveals that the same is
incomplete as the details of currency notes have not been
mentioned in the said recovery memo, which makes the
prosecution case prima facie doubtful and benefit of doubt
even at bail stage must go in favour of the accused. Guidance
is sought from Saeed Ahmad v. The State (2012 P.Cr.L.J.
1293), Muhammad Zafar v. The State and another (2012
P.Cr.L.J. 1549), Shahid Ali Dharejo and another v. The
State (2012 P.Cr.L.J. 1601) and Abid Aziz Ashrafi and 3
others v. The State (2012 P.Cr.L.J. 1148).
Part of Judgment
THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
Criminal Miscellaneous (Bails)11901-B-15
2015 LHC 6650
0 Comments