PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 529
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392 & 411--Bail, grant of--Further inquiry--Neither feature of unknown accused were mentioned in FIR nor identification parade to extent of accused--Recovery of case--Gold ornaments (weighing one tola) from petitioner is concerned, that gold ornaments were having no identification marks and Deputy Prosecutor General apprises that no identification memo regarding same, has been prepared, therefore, evidentiary value of said recovery shall be determined by trial Court after recording of evidence--However, when all aforementioned circumstances are taken into consideration in totality, then case of prosecution to extent of present petitioner falls in ambit of further inquiry as contemplated by sub-Section 2 of Section 497, Cr.P.C.--Deputy Prosecutor General further apprises that petitioner was arrested in case and sent to judicial lock up where he is confined till now--Mere detention of petitioner in lock-up would serve no useful purpose to case of prosecution--Held: It is now well settled that bail cannot be withheld as advance punishment--Bail was allowed. [Pp. 530 & 531] A
Mr. Rizwan Ahmad Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Ansar Yaseen, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Malik Ghulam Muhammad Langrial Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 3.3.2021.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 529
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Farooq Haider, J.
GHULAM RASOOL @ BAMI--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 376-B of 2021, decided on 3.3.2021.
Order
Through instant petition, Ghulam Rasool @ Bami (petitioner/accused) has sought post-arrest bail in case arising out of F.I.R. No. 501/2019 dated 12.12.2019 registered under Sections: 392, 411, PPC at Police Station, Sahuka District Vehari.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the available record with their able assistance, it has been noticed that case of the prosecution as per F.I.R. is that during night of 11/12.12.2019 at about 12:00 of the night, four unknown accused persons equipped with fire-arms while scaling over the wall, entered into house of the complainant, committed robbery and snatched cash, gold and silver ornaments and mobile phone alongwith sim; on 27.02.2020 complainant nominated present petitioner through supplementary application in the case; neither any features of aforementioned unknown accused persons have been mentioned in the FIR nor identification parade to the extent of petitioner has been held in this case. On Court’s query, learned Deputy Prosecutor General under instructions of police official present in Court and after himself going through the record apprises that any source of information for nomination of present petitioner/accused in the case through supplementary application (mentioned above) was neither mentioned in the said supplementary application nor disclosed by the complainant or any other witness throughout investigation till now. Petitioner was statedly, known to the complainant since 2006 because petitioner got registered FIR No. 94/2006, dated 19.04.2006 under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-A(iii), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148, 149, PPC against complainant (copy of said FIR is available at page No. 16 of instant petition as Annexure-D) and petitioner also filed criminal revision petition against complainant and others in said case before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala in the year 2011, which was decided on 31.10.2011 (copy of said revision petition and order is available at Page No. 17 to 21 of instant petition as Annexure-E). As far as, alleged recovery of cash (i.e. Rs. 50,000/-) and gold ornaments (weighing one tola) from petitioner is concerned, suffice it to say that gold ornaments were having no identification marks and learned Deputy Prosecutor General apprises that no identification memo regarding the same, has been prepared, therefore, evidentiary value of said recovery shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. However, when all the aforementioned circumstances are taken into consideration in totality, then case of the prosecution to the extent of present petitioner falls in the ambit of further inquiry as contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 497
Cr.P.C. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General further apprises that petitioner was arrested in the case on 12.06.2020 and sent to judicial lock up on 19.06.2020 where he is confined till now. Mere detention of the petitioner in lock-up would serve no useful purpose to the case of prosecution. It is now well settled that bail cannot be withheld as advance punishment.
3. In view of what has been discussed above, instant petition filed by Ghulam Rasool @ Bami (petitioner) is accepted and he is admitted to post arrest bail in the case subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. It is, however, clarified that observations mentioned above are just tentative in nature, strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail petition and shall have no bearing upon trial of the case, which shall be decided on its own merits by the learned trial Court within a period of three months after receipt of attested copy of this order. Needless to add that if petitioner or anybody on his behalf creates any hurdle in the way of conclusion of trial, then complainant as well as the State would be at liberty to move for recalling of this order.
(R.A.) Bail allowed
0 Comments