Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAHRYAR VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Waheed KhanMuhammad Aslam Haider Gondal
2019 P Cr. L J Note 85 [Lahore] Before Muhammad Waheed Khan, J SHAHRYAR---Petitioner Versus The STATE and another---Respondents Criminal Misc. No. 247680-B of 2018, decided on 15th January, 2019.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 392---Robbery---Bail, grant of---Delay in lodging FIR---Delay in conducting identification parade---Further inquiry---Accused was charged for committing robbery on gun point---Accused was struck by the complainant with his car but he succeeded to run away while leaving his motorcycle at the crime scene---Soon after the occurrence, police reached at the spot and took the motorcycle into possession---Despite the said fact, delay of two days in lodging the crime report created serious doubt regarding the veracity of the stance of the complainant---Identification parade was conducted with delay of about one and a half months---Report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. had already been submitted and since then there was no progress in the trial---Investigation had already been completed and further incarceration of the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any beneficial purpose for the prosecution---Case of accused called further probe into his guilt within the scope of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Petition was allowed and accused was admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances.
Muhammad Aslam Haider Gondal for Petitioner.
Usman Sarwar for the Complainant.
Shabbir Ahmad, Deputy Prosecutor-General and Hashim, S.-I. with record for the State.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD WAHEED KHAN, J.---Having failed to get the post arrest bail in case FIR No.596 dated 11.05.2018, registered under section 392, P.P.C. at Police Station Satukatla, Lahore from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 15.10.2018 the petitioner seeks the same relief through this petition.
2. The brief allegation against the present petitioner namely, Shahryar is that he along with his co-accused committed robbery on gun point with the complainant's wife.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The perusal of record shows that the alleged occurrence took place on 09.05.2018 at 08:15 p.m. whereas the matter was reported to the police on 11.05.2018 at 06:15 p.m. with a delay of two days, the explanation of which has not been advanced by the complainant while lodging the FIR. The allegation against the present petitioner is that when he was stuck by the complainant with his car he succeeded to run away while leaving his motorcycle at the crime scene. The contents of crime report further depicts that soon after the occurrence, police reached at the spot and they have taken the said motorcycle into their possession but despite this fact the delay of two days in lodging the crime report creates a serious doubt regarding the veracity of the stance of the complainant.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strongly argued that after arrest of the petitioner i.e. on 15.06.2018 he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate Model Town, Lahore who ordered to send him on judicial remand for the purpose of identification parade but the accused was never sent to the jail rather the police kept him in the police lock up for about six days. Learned Judicial Magistrate issued Show Cause Notices to the delinquent police officials, and vide order dated 19.07.2018 the inquiry regarding the above said illegal act of the police officials was recommended to the CCPO, Lahore.
6. Another aspect of the case is that though the accused were arrested on 15.06.2018, the identification parade was conducted on 31.07.2018 with a delay of about one and a half months. This aspect of the case also speaks volumes on part of the police. Even otherwise, the accused is behind the bars since his arrest. The report under section 173, Cr.P.C. has already been submitted on 16.08.2018 and since then there is no progress in the trial. The investigation has already been completed and further incarceration of the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any beneficial purpose for the prosecution.
7. For what has been discussed above, prima facie, there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioner, called further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. So, the instant petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
SA/S-13/L Bail granted.