PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 432
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 394, 411, 337-F(vi)--Bail after arrest, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of--Offence of robbery--Petitioner not named in FIR--No identification parade test was conducted--Other aspect of case is that no statement including injured is available on record that assailant had fired at him--Counsel for petitioner apprised Court that two accused persons had already been admittedly to bail, so there is force in assertion of counsel for petitioner that present petitioner also deserves same treatment on touchstone of principle of consistency--The petitioner is behind bars for last about eight months and despite fact that report under Section 173, Cr.P.C had already been sent to trial Court way back there is no progress in trial so far--Law Officer apprised Court that petitioner was previously involved in as many as fifteen cases but admitted that he has been implicated in all those cases through supplementary statements after his arrest in present case--Bail granted. [P. 433] A
Ch. Muhammad Saeed Machra, Advocate for Petitioner.
Malik Mudassar Ali, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Ms. Qurat-ul-Ain Ijaz, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 4.11.2021.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 432
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Muhammad Waheed Khan, J.
MUDASIR alias MASHAR--Appellant
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc No. 6333-B of 2021, decided on 4.11.2021.
Order
Having failed to get post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 118 dated 13.02.2021, registered under Sections 394 and 411 and 337-F(vi), PPC at Police Station Shah Rukan-e-Alam, District Multan from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide order dated 10.08.2021 Mudasir alias Mashar petitioner has prayed the same relief through the instant petition.
2. One Muhammad Amin set the machinery of law in motion while lodging the instant crime report with the above said police station that on 12.02.2021 at 7:15 p.m three unknown accused persons had committed the offence of robbery with the son of the complainant namely, Abdul Razzaq who was going back after collecting the recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and one of the assailants also fired a Pistol shot at his thigh. Hence, the instant FIR.
3. Pro and contra arguments heard. Record perused.
4. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner is not named in the FIR rather the complainant made a supplementary statement on 23.02.2021 with the effect that he along with one Muhammad Naeem was standing at the gate of Fruit Market on 23.02.2021 when they had seen three persons riding on the motorcycle and they identified them as the culprits in the instant case. Thereafter, they came to know that those persons were the present petitioner and two co-accused i.e. Muhammad Shakeel and Muhammad Mubeen. The petitioner has been arrested on 08.03.2021 and admittedly the petitioner and the other co-accused were not put to test identification parade which is the irregularity and lacuna in the prosecution case.
6. For the reasons discussion supra, there are sufficient reasons to believe that case of the petitioner calls further inquiry into his guilt within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. So, by allowing the instant petition the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Bail granted
0 Comments