PLJ 2025 Cr.C. (Note) 228
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, J.
MUJAHID--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 39391-B of 2025, decided on 31.7.2025.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت، منظوری--الزام--جرم "ڈکیتی"--ایف آئی آر میں کسی کا نام نہیں تھا، جس میں آٹھ/نو نامعلوم ملزمان کا ذکر تھا، جنہوں نے مبینہ طور پر ڈکیتی کی--درخواست گزار کا نام ایف آئی آر میں نہیں ہے--اسے پولیس نے واقعہ کے بائیس دن بعد حراست میں لیا۔ حیرت انگیز طور پر درخواست گزار کو کسی شناختی پریڈ میں نہیں رکھا گیا--تکمیلی بیان مدعی میں درخواست گزار کا نام ظاہر کرنے والا کوئی ذریعہ معلومات نہیں بتا رہا تھا--درخواست گزار کی نشاندہی پر ایک تولہ زیورات کی برآمدگی کو دوران مقدمہ جانچا جا سکتا ہے--مذکورہ بالا تمام حالات، جب مجموعی طور پر مدنظر رکھے جائیں تو، موجودہ کیس کو مزید انکوائری کا بنانے کے لیے کافی ہیں--درخواست گزار اپنی گرفتاری کے بعد سے جیل میں ہے اور اس کی مزید ضرورت نہیں ہے--عدالت درخواست گزار کے حق میں اپنی صوابدید استعمال کرنا مناسب سمجھتی ہے۔
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395 & 412--Bail after arrest, grant of--Allegation of--Offence of “Robbery”--No body was named in F.I.R., wherein eight/nine unknown culprits were mentioned, who allegedly committed robbery--Petitioner do not figure in F.I.R.--He was taken into custody by police after twenty two days of occurrence. Surprisingly petitioner was not put to any identification parade--Supplementary statement complainant disclosing name of petitioner was not reflecting any source of information--Recovery of one tola of jewellary at instance of petitioner could be scrutinized during trial--All above said circumstances, when are taken into consideration accumulatively, are sufficient to make present case that one of further inquiry--Petitioner was behind bars ever since his arrest and his person was no more required--Court think it appropriate to exercise my discretion in favour of petitioner. [Para 3] A
Syed Afzal Shah Bukhari, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Irshad Ali Chaudhary, Advocate for Complainant.
Mr. Humayoon Aslam, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing: 31.7.2025.
Order
The petitioner (Mujahid), being arrayed as an accused in case F.I.R. No. 957/2024, dated 08.08.2024, registered with Police Station City Phoolnagar, District Kasur, for offences under Sections 395 and 412 of PPC, seek his post arrest bail, after the same was refused by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, vide order dated 19.03.2025.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for complainant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perusal of record, it was observed that according to F.I.R. Tanveer Ahmad (complainant) was running his jewellary shop styled as “Zain Jewellers”. On 07.08.2024 at about 07:15 P.M. eight/nine dacoits broke into his shop and snatched away golden jewellary weighing 50 Tola and silver jewellary 5 Kg and cash of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Thereafter said culprits broke into adjoining shop of one Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Yaqoob and snatched golden jewellary weighing 20 Tola and silver jewellary weighing 4 Kg.
3. Record reveals that no body was named in the F.I.R., wherein eight/nine unknown culprits were mentioned, who allegedly committed robbery on 07.08.2024. Petitioner do not figure in the F.I.R. He was taken into custody by police on 30.09.2024 i.e. after twenty two days of the occurrence. Surprisingly petitioner was not put to any identification parade. Supplementary statement of complainant disclosing the name of petitioner was not reflecting any source of information. Recovery of one tola of the jewellary at the instance of petitioner could be scrutinized during trial. All the above said circumstances, when are taken into consideration accumulatively, are sufficient to make present case that one of further inquiry. Petitioner was behind the bars ever since his arrest and his person was no more required. I, therefore, think it appropriate to exercise my discretion in favour of petitioner.
4. For what has been discussed above, the present petition succeeds. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
5. Needless to mention that any observation made in the above order is tentative in nature and shall not influence the learned trial Court in any manner.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments