PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 24
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
versus
STATE etc--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 5358-B of 2023, decided on 13.11.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 458, 380, 381-A, 411 & 392--Bail after arrest, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of “Robbery”--No identification parade has been conducted in matter Besides, features have not been described by complainant in contents of FIR with regard to petitioner, which makes case of petitioner is of further inquiry--Liability of petitioner for offences would be determined by trial Court after sifting be evidentiary worth of extra judicial confession, till then case of accused would be within domain of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.. calling for further inquiry into petitioner’s guilt--Although, recovery of solar plates have been shown to be affected from possession of petitioner, any description or distinctive forts of solar plates including other articles statedly snatched from complainant have not been mentioned in FIR so as to establish that solar plates which were statedly recovered from petitioner form part of looted property There is nothing on record to establish, that petitioner is a previously convicted offender--Investigation is complete--Petitioner is no more required by police for further investigation--He is behind bars since 28.05.2023 without any progress in trial--Fair and speedy trial is one of fundamental rights of petitioner--No moral or legal compulsion exists to keep petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, which would amount to punishment without trial--Petition accepted.
[Para 4 & 5] B & C
2015 PCr.LJ 1812.
Supplementary Statement--
----It is settled principle that supplementary statement has no evidentiary value. [Para 4] A
Ref. 2008 YLR 2776.
Mr. Faisal Bashir Chaudhary, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Hassan Mahmood Khan Tareen, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Nemo for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 13.11.2023.
Order
Despite issuance of service no one has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No 538/2023, dated 05.04 2023, for offences under Sections 458, 380, 381-A, 411, 392, PPC, registered at Police Station City Jampur District Rajanpur
2. Precisely, as per the prosecution story, in the intervening night of 04/05 04 2023 four unknown accused after breaking the house of complainant committed robbery with him and took away 13 Solar Plates alongwith battery and UPS, one motorcycle, Mobile Phone, Solar Converter and cash Rs. 10,000/- on gun point.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The alleged occurrence took place in the intervening night of 04/05.04.2023 by four unknown accused persons. The petitioner was implicated with the commission of crime through the supplementary statement of the complainant which was got recorded on 15.05.2023 after a delay of about one month and ten days from the date of incident wherein neither any source of information regarding alleged complicity of the petitioner in the crime nor any specific role during the occurrence has been mentioned. The prosecution has nothing in hand to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence except a belated supplementary statement of complainant which does not carry any evidentiary value. It is settled principle that supplementary statement has no evidentiary value. Reliance is made upon Muhammad Rafique v. The State (2008 YLR 2776). No identification parade has been conducted in the matter Besides, features have not been described by the complainant in the contents of the FIR with regard to the petitioner, which makes the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry. Liability of petitioner for the said offences would be determined by the learned trial Court after sifting the be evidentiary worth of the extra judicial confession, 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. Although, recovery of solar plates have been shown to be affected from the possession of the petitioner, however, any description or distinctive sorts of solar plates including other articles statedly snatched from the complainant have not been mentioned in the FIR so as to establish that the solar plates which were statedly recovered from the petitioner form part of the looted property. There is nothing on the record to establish, that the petitioner is a previously convicted offender.
5. Even otherwise, the investigation is complete. The person of the petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation. He is behind the bars since 28.05.2023 without any progress in the trial. Fair and speedy trial is one of the fundamental rights of petitioner. No moral or legal compulsion exists to keep the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which would amount to punishment without trial. Guidance is sought from Liaquat Hussain v. The State through Advocate-General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and another (2015 PCr.LJ 1812).
6. Therefore, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.
(A.A.K.) Petitin accepted
0 Comments