Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Khawaja Muhammad SharifHafiz Khalil Ahmad,Tabasem Ansar for the State with Sanaullah
2007 Y L R 901
2007 Y L R 901
[Lahore]
Before Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J
MUHAMMAD IMRAN---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5621-B of 2006, heard on 26th July, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.458---Bail, refusal of---Allegation against accused was that he along with his co-accused trespassed into the house of complainant at 7.00 p.m. armed with fire-arms and looted on gun point golden ornaments and other articles worth Rs.5 lac---Contention of counsel for accused that names of accused were not mentioned in the F.I.R., had no force; because it was commonly known that "robbers" and "dacoits", were not known to the complainant party and they never told their names at the time of commission of the offence and their names come on surface during the course of investigation when some clue would come on record---Such was the reason for non-mentioning names of accused in the F.I.R.; benefit of which could not be extended to accused---Offence against accused was a heinous one and it was not against an individual, but against. the society---Such-like cases were at peak and persons accused therein, could not be let loose on the society, merely on technical grounds to give them a chance to repeat offence---Accused was connected with commission of offence which. fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. and he was not entitled to bail.
1997 SCMR 971 and 2006 YLR 14 rel.
Hafiz Khalil Ahmad for Petitioner.
Tabasem Ansar for the State with Sanaullah A.S.-I. with record.
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---It is a second bail petition as earlier was disposed of as having been withdrawn.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail petition contends that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case; that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and was involved through supplementary statement, no identification parade was held, no source of information has been mentioned, no list of looted articles was supplied to the petitioner, case falls with subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. and the case to his extent is one of further inquiry and that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. He has relied on 1997 SCMR 971 and 2006 YLR 14.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the looted articles including golden ornaments and cash amount were recovered from the petitioner along with fire-arm, same were identified by the complainant, offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail from this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
5. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with his co-accused criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant at 7-00 p.m. when his two sons were present at home along with his daughter-in-law, the petitioner and co-accused, who. were armed with fire-arms, looted on gun-point golden ornaments, wrist watches, computer, passport etc. worth Rs.15 lac, the eye-witnesses were then locked in the store and the accused then went away along with the looted articles. List of articles was supplied to the police which is duly mentioned in Zimini No.2, dated 4-12-2005. It was luck of the complainant, that the petitioner was arrested in this case and so many looted articles were recovered from him. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner qua non-mentioning of petitioner's name in the F.I.R. is concerned, it is commonly known that the' "robbers" and "dacoits" are not known to the complainant party and they do not tell their names at the time of commission of the offence. Their names come on surface during the course of investigation when some clue comes on the record. This is the reason for non-mentioning petitioner's name in the F.I.R. benefit of which cannot be extended to the petitioner. The offence is a heinous one. It is not against an individual but against the society. Such-like offences are at peak and the persons accused therein cannot be let loose on the society merely on technical grounds to give them a chance to repeat the offence alike because it has to be seen after a regular trial whether the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused have any force. The precedent case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and is not applicable in this case. In the afore-referred circumstances, this Court is of the, prima facie, view that the petitioner is connected with the commission of offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and is not entitled to bail. Resultantly, I find no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./M-733/L Bail refused.