Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS Respondent: THE STATE
2001 P Cr
2001 P Cr. L J 1916
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ‑‑‑ Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1278/B of 2001, decided on 1st June, 2001.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 103‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.381‑A, 380 & 411‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Matter was reported to the police after one month and twenty‑three days from the occurrence‑‑‑Accused who was not named in the F.I.R. was also not among those five persons who had confessed their guilt before the Punchayat‑‑‑Only incriminatory evidence collected by the prosecution against the accused consisted of extra judicial confession and recovery‑‑‑Both the complainant and prosecution witnesses before whom confession was allegedly made by the accused remained silent for seventeen days as matter was reported to the police after seventeen days from making said extra judicial confession‑‑‑Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. were violated during recovery proceedings‑‑‑Allegations against the accused needing further prove and inquiry he was granted bail.
M. Akhtar Hussain Khawaja for Petitioner.
Abdul Rashid Chaudhary for the State.
ORDER
At the very outset the learned counsel for the petitioner says that he does not want to press the petition on the basis of compromise and affidavit given by the complainant, he would argue the case on other available
2. The petitioner seeks his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.378 of 2000, dated 2‑9‑2000 registered at Police Station Jatoi on 2‑9‑2000‑under sections 381‑A, 380 and 411, P.P.C. on the written statement of one Karim Bakhsh son of Haji Khair Muhammad.
3. According to F.I.R. one motorcycle belonging to the complainant and ornaments alongwith cash was stolen from the house of the complainant during the night in‑between 8/9‑7‑2000. He has further 'stated in the F.I.R. that the complainant made efforts to trace the stolen property and after some time he suspected that Abdul Rehman, Nazir Ahmad, Karim Bakhsh, Kalimullah and Ghulam Akbar were the persons who had committed theft in his house. He has further mentioned in the F.I.R. that the abovementioned persons had confessed the theft before Punchayat.
4. The complainant then alongwith two other witnesses made a supplementary statement before the Investigating Officer, on 20‑11‑2000 and in his statement he alleged that Muhammad Afzal, and another co‑accused had confessed his guilt in the presence of witnesses on 3‑11‑2000. On 21‑11‑2000 the petitioner was allegedly arrested and got recovered motorcycle from inside the living room of his house.
5. A report under section 173,Cr.P.C. and the challan of the case have been sent up. The petitioner is in judicial lock‑up.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and perused the record which has been brought by Zia Ullah, A.S.‑I.
7. It has been noticed that although the occurrence has taken place on the night in‑between 8/9‑7‑2000 yet the matter was not reported to the police till 2‑9‑2000. The complainant has clearly named five persons in the F.I.R. and had also stated that those five persons confessed their guilt before the Punchayat. The petitioner is not one of those persons and has not been named in the F.I.R. The only incriminating evidence collected by the prosecution against the petitioner consists of extra judicial confession and A recovery. As far as extra judicial confession is concerned it has been noticed that although extra judicial confession was made before the complainant and other witnesses on 3‑11‑2000, yet the matter was not reported to the police till 20‑11‑2000. Similarly during the recovery of motorcycle provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. were violated. It is strange that why the complainant and his other witnesses kept quiet for 17 days after the alleged confession of the petitioner. .
8. For what has been discussed above, the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry, therefore, I am inclined to release him on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑702/L Bail granted