Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Asif Saeed Khan KhosaCh. Waseem A. Bhaddar
2008 P Cr
2008 P Cr. L J 1762
[Lahore]
Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6152-B of 2005, decided on 27th September, 2005.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392 & 395---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---F.I.R. in the case had been lodged with a delay of two days---Accused was not named in F.I.R., but his name had surfaced in the case for the first time through a supplementary statement made by the complainant after six days of the alleged occurrence-Complainant had implicated accused exclusively on the basis of an extra-judicial confession allegedly made jointly by two accused before the complainant---Said joint extra-judicial confession was devoid of any evidentiary value---Complainant, in the F.I.R., had specifically nominated three culprits, in supplementary statement made by him, he exonerated said nominated culprits and instead introduced five others including accused as the culprits---No stolen article had been recovered from the possession of accused during investigation in the case---Although a pistol had been recovered from the custody of accused, during the investigation, but prima facie, nothing was available on the record of investigation to connect said pistol with the alleged offence---Investigation of the case had already been completed and the report under S.173, Cr.P.C. had been submitted by the police and it had expressly been recorded in the report that accused had never entered the house where alleged occurrence had taken place and throughout the said occurrence; accused kept on standing out in the street---Case against accused, calling for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Ch. Waseem A. Bhaddar for Petitioner.
Wajeeh-ud-Din Parvez for the State.
Muhammad Younus, S.-I. with record.
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.----Through this petition Muhammad Yousaf petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.36 registered at Police Station Kakrali, District Gujrat on 1-3-2005 in respect of an offence under section 392, P.P.C. During the investigation section 392, P.P.C. was deleted from the F.I.R. and the same was substituted by section 395, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a delay of two days. Admittedly the petitioner had not been nominated in the F.I.R. in any capacity whatsoever. The petitioner's name had surfaced in this case for the first time through a supplementary statement made by the complainant on 4-3-2005, i.e., after six days of the alleged occurrence. A perusal of the said supplementary statement shows that the complainant had implicated the petitioner exclusively on the basis of an extra judicial confession allegedly made jointly by two co-accused of the petitioner before the complainant. A joint extra judicial confession is devoid of any evidentiary value. It has straightaway been noticed by me that in the F.I.R. the complainant had specifically nominated three culprits but in the above mentioned supplementary statement made by him he exonerated the said nominated culprits and instead introduced five others including the present petitioner as the culprits. It is admitted at all hands that no stolen article had been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case. Although a pistol had statedly been recovered from the petitioner's custody during the investigation yet prima facie there is nothing available on the record of investigation to connect the said pistol with the alleged offence. The investigation of this case has already been completed and the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. submitted by the police expressly records that the petitioner had never entered the house where the alleged occurrence had taken place and throughout the said occurrence he had kept on standing out in the street.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of the section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-295/L Bail granted.