-Bail after arrest, grant of---Robbery of cash amount and gold ornaments--Petitioner is nominated in FIR-

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 69

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

----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 394, 337-A(i), 337-F(i) & 411--Bail after arrest, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of--Robbery of cash amount and gold ornaments--Petitioner is nominated in FIR--According to prosecution, he was wearing a mask but it slipped off and Complainant and PWs identified him on spot--The alleged occurrence took place on 13.11.2018 at about 12:30 a.m--but age of injuries of Complainant and PWs does not correspond with time--All injured were taken to Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Jalapur Pirwala, where Medical Officer examined them and opined that injuries of injured persons were 5/7 days old--It is trite that if there is a conflict in medical evidence and ocular account, benefit of doubt should be extended to accused even at bail stage--Deputy Prosecutor General submitted that rifle, weapon of offence, and Rs--30,000/- out of stolen money were recovered from Petitioner which are sufficient to incriminate him--So far as rifle is concerned, there is missing on record to show that empties found at spot matched with it--On other hand, alleged recovery of is of little consequence because Complainant has not mentioned denomination of his currency notes in FIR-- Petitioner is incarcerated since 27-5-2019--He has joined investigation and is not required by police for any further probe--No useful purpose would be served in him behind bars--Bail was allowed.

                                                                          [Pp. 70 & 71] A, B & C

1997 SCMR 32 and 2014 SCMR 12.

Malik Muhammad Siddique Kamboh, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Ansar Yasin, DPG for State.

Mr. Shafqat Raza Thaheem, Advocate, for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 30.9.2020.

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 69
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Tariq Saleem sheikh, J.
MOHSIN--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 1694-B of 2020, heard on 30.9.2020.

Order

Through this application the Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 471/2018 dated 13.11.2018 registered at Police Station Saddar Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan, for offences under Sections 394/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/411, PPC.

2. Briefly, the allegation against the Petitioner is that on 13.11.2018 at about 12:30 a.m. the Petitioner and his co-cused committed robbery in the Complainant’s house and took away cash amounting to Rs. 500,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 2½ tolas. During the occurrence the Complainant and his brothers Manzoor Ahmad and Munir Ahmad were injured.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. The Petitioner is nominated in the FIR. According to the prosecution, he was wearing a mask but it slipped off and the Complainant and the PWs identified him on the spot. The alleged occurrence took place on 13.11.2018 at about 12:30 a.m. but the age of injuries of the Complainant and the PWs does not correspond with the time. All the injured were taken to Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Jalapur Pirwala, where the Medical Officer examined them and opined that the injuries of Manzoor and Abdul Shakoor were 5/7 days old. It is trite that if there is a conflict in medical evidence and ocular account, benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused even at the bail stage. Reliance is placed on Syed Abdul Baqi Shah v. The State (1997 SCMR 32) and Syed Khalid Hussain Shah v. The State and another (2014 SCMR 12). Hence, further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. is required to determine the petitioner’s guilt.

5. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General submitted that rifle, the weapon of offence, and Rs. 30,000/- out of the stolen money were recovered from the Petitioner which are sufficient to incriminate him. So far as the rifle is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that empties found at the spot matched with it. On the other hand, the alleged recovery of cash is of little consequence because the Complainant has not mentioned the denomination of his currency notes in the FIR.

6. The Petitioner is incarcerated since 27-5-2019. He has joined the investigation and is not required by the police for any further probe. No useful purpose would be served in keeping him behind the bars.

7. For what has been discussed above, this application is allowed. The Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed