PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 202
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
SHAHID--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl Misc. No. 1702-B of 2023, decided on 30.3.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380/457/411--Supplementary statement--Source of information--Post arrest bail--grant of-- Petitioner is not nominated in FIR rather he has been indicated on the basis of supplementary statement--After two days of the registration of FIR--Source of information in respect of involvement of present petitioner in this crime is not available on record--Chances of petitioner’s false implication with deliberation after consultation cannot be ruled out--The investigation is complete. The petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation--Recovery of gold earrings--the evidentiary value of the alleged recovery would be better adjudged by the trial Court--Petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail.
[Para 4, 5 & 6] A, B, C & D
2010 SCMR 949; 2010 SCMR 385; 1984 SCMR 119; 2012 SCMR 1137; 2009 SCMR 299; PLD 2012 SC 222 ref.
Khawaja Qaiser Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Tanveer Akhtar ADPP for State.
Date of hearing: 30.3.2023.
Order
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 38/2023 dated 26.01.2023, registered under Sections 457, 380, 411, PPC, with Police Station Saddar Jampur, District Rajanpur.
2. The allegations against the petit:oner as per contents of FIR are that during the intervening night of 22/23.01.2023, he along with his co-accused persons after breaking into the house of complainant, committed theft of cash amount, foreign currency, gold ornaments and household articles as detailed in the FIR.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The alleged occurrence had taken place in the intervening night of 22/23.01.2023 but the same was reported to the police on 26.01.2023 i.e. with a delay of three days for which no explanation has been forthcoming. The petitioner is not nominated in FIR rather he has been indicted on the basis of supplementary statement of complainant that too after two days of the registration of FIR. The veracity of the said supplementary statement is to be adjudged by the learned trial Court after recourse to evidence. Even otherwise, source of information in respect of involvement of present petitioner in this crime is not available on record. The complainant has also not disclosed the same in his supplementary statement. Therefore, chances of petitioner’s false implication with deliberation after consultation cannot be ruled out. Reliance can be made upon cases titled “Nadeem alias Nanha alias Billa Sher v. The State” (2010 SCMR 949), “Muhammad Rafique and others v. The State and others” (2010 SCMR 385) and “Hadayat Ullah v. Abdul Hameed and another” (1984 SCMR 119).
5. The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 29.01.2023 and sent to judicial lockup. The investigation is complete. The petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation. Therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.
6. So far as the recovery of gold earrings (weighing 6 masha) on the potation of the petitioner is concerned, the evidentiary value of the alleged recovery would be better adjudged by the learned trial Court. Liability of the petitioner for the said offences would be determined by the learned trial Court after sifting the evidentiary worth of the supplementary statement, till then case of accused would be within the domain of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into the petitioner’s guilt. Reliance is made upon Ehsan-ullah. v. The State (2012 SCMR 1137).
7. All the above discussed facts lead to this Court to draw an inference that prima facie prosecution has not sufficient incriminating material in hand to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence at this stage and instant case requires further inquiry as contemplated in Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. as per law laid down by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases reported as Ehsan Ullah v. The State (2012 SCMR 1137), “Mitho Pitafi: v. The State” (2009 SCMR 299) and “Qamar alias Mitho v. The State and others” (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 222).
8. This petition is, therefore, accepted and petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
9. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.
(A.A.K.) Bail accepted
0 Comments