Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AZMAT VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Khurshid Anwar BhinderCh. Nawab Ali Meo
2009 M L D 940
2009 M L D 940
[Lahore]
Before Khurshid Anwar Bhinder, J
MUHAMMAD AZMAT---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.7871-B of 2008, decided on 29-9-2008.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392/411---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R. and no role had been ascribed to him---F.I.R. was only got registered against unknown persons---Since no identification parade was held, nothing definite could be ascertained regarding the identity of accused, which could possibly connect accused with the commission of the offence---No direct or indirect evidence was available against accused---Accused had been nominated in the supplementary statement after 1-1/2 years---Said fact alone proved that after such a long time, complainant had not been able to trace out real culprits---No weapon of offence had been recovered from accused---Amount recovered from accused was only to the extent of Rs.10,000, whereas dacoity had been committed to the tune of Rs.19,38,107 and no evidence was on record that as to whether the amount which had been looted in the occurrence was exactly the same which had been recovered from accused---Case of accused, in circumstances, had become that of further inquiry into his guilt---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Ch. Nawab Ali Meo for Petitioner.
Shafqatullah Butt, DPG for the State.
ORDER
KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.---Muhammad Azmat petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.148, dated 5-3-2006, registered under sections 392/411, P.P.C. at Police Station Green Town, Lahore.
2. Precise allegations as per F.I.R. are that three unknown persons had entered the factory of the complainant and had committed dacoity of Rs.19,38,107.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and no specific role has been attributed to him. Petitioner was nominated in the supplementary statement after 1 1/2 years of the occurrence. He further submits that no crime weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and only Rs.10,000 have been recovered from him. No identification parade was ever held to identify the accused persons. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last ten months. Under the circumstances the petitioner be released on bail.
4. Leaned DPG while opposing the bail application submits that the petitioner has been held guilty in police investigation. Recovery of Rs.10,000 has been effected from him. He, however, submits that no identification parade was held to identify the accused persons.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and have also perused the record. Petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and no role has been ascribed to him. F.I.R. was only got registered against unknown persons and who are those unknown persons it was not known to any one. Since no identification parade was held, therefore, nothing definite can be ascertained regarding the identity of the present petitioner which could possibly connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner. He has been nominated in the supplementary statement after 1-1/2 years. This fact alone proves that after such a long time complainant has not been able to trace out the real culprits. No weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner. Amount recovered from the petitioner is only to the extent of Rs.10,000 whereas dacoity had been committed to the tune of Rs.19,38,107 and there is no evidence on record that as to whether the amount which has been looted in the said occurrence is exactly the same which has been recovered from the petitioner. In such like situation, the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,00 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-266/L Bail granted.