PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 130
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Farooq Haider, J.
MUHAMMAD KASHIF--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 8073-B of 2020, decided on 3.2.2021.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 381-A & 411--Bail after arrest, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of theft motor cycle--No source of information regarding culpability/involvement of petitioner in alleged occurrence, has been mentioned in afore-stated supplementary statement of complainant; further apprises that aforementioned motor-cycle has not been recovered, rather Rs. 20,000/- has been allegedly recovered on pointing out of petitioner--Evidentiary value of aforementioned supplementary statement of complainant as well as statedly recovered amount will be determined by trial Court after recording of evidence--However, prima facie, at present, case of prosecution against petitioner requires further probe and falls in ambit of sub-Section 2 of Section 497, Cr.P.C--Punishment of alleged offences does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.; challan report already stands submitted in concerned Court; no useful purpose would be served to case of by keeping petitioner in jail for an indefinite period--Bail allowed. [Para 3] A
Peer Syed Muhammad Najmul Husnain, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Ansar Yasin, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Nemo for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 3.2.2021.
Order
Through instant petition, Muhammad Kashif (petitioner) has sought post-arrest bail in case arising out of F.I.R. No. 455/2020 dated 10.09.2020 registered under Sections 381-A, 411, PPC at Police Station Tibba Sultanpur, District Vehari.
2. At the very outset, learned Deputy Prosecutor General under instructions of police official (present in Court) and after himself going through the record apprises that Hafiz Ghulam Fareed (complainant/Respondent No. 2) has been duly served, however, he has not turned up.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the record with their able assistance, it has been noticed that initially the aforementioned FIR was got recorded by the complainant with the allegation that motor-cycle of the complainant has been stolen by unknown accused; the alleged occurrence took place on 05.09.2020 whereas the matter was reported to the police with a delay of more than five days i.e. on 10.09.2020; subsequently, the present petitioner was roped in this case alongwith other unknown accused persons on the basis of supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant of the case on 25.10.2020. However, 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 no source of information regarding culpability/involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence, has been mentioned in the afore-stated supplementary statement of the complainant; further apprises that aforementioned motor-cycle has not been recovered, rather Rs. 20,000/-has been allegedly recovered on the pointing out of the petitioner on 28.10.2020. Evidentiary value of aforementioned supplementary statement of the complainant as well as statedly recovered amount will be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of the evidence. However, prima facie, at present, case of the prosecution against the petitioner requires further probe and falls in the ambit of sub-Section 2 of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Punishment of the alleged offences does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.; challan report already stands submitted in the concerned Court; no useful purpose would be served to the case of prosecution by keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period.
4. In view of what has been discussed above, instant petition for grant of post arrest bail is accepted and Muhammad Kashif (petitioner) 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.
5. 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 will create 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.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments