Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: UMAIR ASHRAF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Sardar Tariq MasoodNadeem Shibli
2013 Y L R 2683
[Lahore]
Before Sardar Tariq Masood, J
UMAIR ASHRAF---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.10385 of 2013, decided on 9th September, 2013.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.395 & 412---Dacoity, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused were shown to be unknown in the F.I.R.---Complainant while making the supplementary statement though had nominated accused, but did not give any source; and had simply mentioned that complainant came to know about the involvement of accused---No identification parade was conducted in the case, and no explanation as to why the identification parade was exempted in the case was forthcoming---Claim of the complainant was that accused was amongst those persons who committed dacoity, but his statement was without any source---Police had come to the conclusion that accused was guilty to the extent of purchasing goods in question from the accused persons---F.I.R., had specifically mentioned that the unknown dacoits snatched the keys of Godown from watchman, but statement of such watchman had not been recorded by the Investigating Officer---Statement of sole eye-witness had not been recorded by Investigating Officer in the case---Description of the bags of goods in question, had not been mentioned in the F.I.R., or any subsequent investigation---After the alleged recovery of 198 bags from accused, no identification memo was prepared, nor those were shown to the complainant for identification---Evidentiary value of the said recovery would be appreciated by the Trial Court after recording evidence---Case of accused, in circumstances called for further inquiry---Accused who was behind the bars, had no previous criminal record---Accused, though subsequent to present case was involved in other criminal case, but his bail application was allowed---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Nadeem Shibli for Petitioner.
Muhammad Akram Tahir, DDPP for the State along with Muhammad Ilyas, S.-I.
Muhammad Aslam Khan Buttar for the Complainant.
ORDER
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.---Umair Ashraf petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 223 dated 1-4-2013 registered under sections 395/412, P.P.C. at Police Station Sabzi Mandi District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R. is that at 10-15 p.m. unknown persons while armed with firearm weapons came into Godown of the complainant and on gun point obtained the keys of Godown from Watchman and took away 875 bags of plastic granules (Dana) valuing Rs.36,00,000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the assailants were unknown and in that eventuality, the identification parade was essential; that on 31-5-2013, the petitioner was taken into custody by the police and kept the petitioner in illegal confinement; that although, it was shown that on 28-6-2013, the petitioner got recovered 198 bags of plastic granules but there is no description of the said bags in the F.I.R. nor the complainant identified the same during the investigation; that the petitioner has no previous criminal record and after the arrest of the petitioner, another case F.I.R. No. 270 of 2013 was registered against the petitioner in which he has been bailed out.
4. On the other hand, learned DDPP for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application while arguing that petitioner was involved in first supplementary statement of the complainant and in the second supplementary statement, six other accused have been involved by the complainant; that during investigation, 198 bags of plastic granules were recovered on the pointation of the petitioner.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, in the F.I.R., the assailants were shown to be unknown. While making the supplementary statement on 31-5-2013, the complainant although nominated the petitioner but did not give any source and simply mentioned that he came to know about the involvement of the petitioner. No identification parade was conducted in this case. The prosecution is unable to explain as to why the identification parade was exempted in this case. On the other hand, the claim of the complainant is that the petitioner was amongst of those persons who committed dacoity but his claim is without any source. On the other hand, the police came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty to the extent of purchasing of said plastic granules (Dana) from the other accused persons.
In the F.I.R., it is specifically mentioned that the unknown dacoits snatched the keys of Godown from Mahabat Khan Watchman. Surprisingly, in this case, till today, the statement of said Watchman has not been recorded by the I.O. The statement of sole eye-witness has not been recorded by the I.O. in this case.
In the F.I.R. or any subsequent investigation, the description of the bags of plastic Dana/granules has not been mentioned. After the alleged recovery of 198 bags from the petitioner, no identification memo was prepared nor those were shown to the complainant for identification purpose. The evidentiary value of the said recovery will be appreciated by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. Presently, due to the above mentioned reasons, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars and prior to this occurrence, he has no previous criminal record. Although, subsequent to this case, he was involved in case F.I.R. No. 270 of 2013 but his bail application was allowed by the learned trial Court.
7. Consequently, this petition is allowed and Umair Ashraf petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rs. Two lacs only) with Two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
HBT/U-8/L Bail granted.