1999 PLP 1753 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.387/386/506/507‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Initial registration of F.I.R. had not connected the accused with the occurrence‑‑‑Arrival of the accused at the place of occurrence without being armed with any weapon or accompanied by any other armed person to take the money was surprising‑‑‑Joining of the police officers in the raid proceedings and the presence of the prosecution witnesses at the spot stated to have attested the recovery memo., had not been mentioned in the case diary which had made their presence at the scene of occurrence doubtful‑‑‑Numbers of currency notes were also not incorporated in the case diary to tally the same afterwards in case of apprehension‑ of accused‑‑‑Statement of the complainant about placing the amount in the form of ten currency notes of hundred rupees each with their specific numbers and the identification of the same after recovery from the possession of accused, had not been recorded‑‑‑Case of accused, thus, required further inquiry into his guilt‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Mrs. Sofia Masood for the State. Date of hearing: 14th May, 1999. Ali Hussain Khan, Member District Council, Khushab (complainant) got recorded F.I.R. No. 57 dated 5‑12‑1998 at Police Station Jaura Klaan, District Khushab under section 387, Pakistan Penal Code with the allegation that some unknown person threw one letter on 27‑11‑1998 in the courtyard of the house of his paternal uncle Sardar Shuja Muhammad, M.N.A in Village Jamali wherein he demanded Rs.2,00,000 (rupees two lacs) to be placed in Chowk Khatwaan and another letter was found from there on 5‑12‑1998 when an amount of Rs.3,00,000 (rupees three lacs) was demanded. According to the complainant he looked after the affairs of his said paternal uncle in village Jamali. The police is said to have immediately chalked out a programme to proceed in the matter on the night falling between 5/6‑12‑1998. A raiding party eras constituted. Ali Hussain Khan complainant is said to have arrived in Chowk Khatwaan ors a vehicle who placed some amount there. One person arrived in Chowk Kbatwaan from Village Jamali at 1‑30‑a.m. On foot who picked up the amount and was apprehended. He was none else than Muhammad Khan petitioner‑accused. This raid was supervised by Ghazanfar Ali Shah, Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station Jaura Klaan, District Khushab in the company of Tahir Abbas Shah, S.I./S.H.O. Police Station Jauhar Abad, Shabbir Hussain, S.I./S.H.O. Police Station Noorpur That and others. The amount of Rs.1,000 placed there and original National Identity Card of Muhammad Khan petitioner -accused were recovered when his person was searched. A memo. of recovery was prepared which was attested by Rafaqat Hussain and Shamshad Ali P.Ws The respective number of ten currency Notes of rupees one hundred each were entered in the recovery memo. Muhammad Khan petitioner was arrested as an accused there and then. The police added sections 386, 506 and 507, Pakistan Penal Code. The bail plea of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned lower Courts who has filed this petition before this Court to try his luck for his admission to bail.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is a case of political victimization because the petitioner did not support the political family of the complainant Ali Hussain Khan during the elections who himself is a Member District Council, Khushab and a nephew of Sardar Shuja Muhammad Khan, M.N.A. He added that the further statement of Ali Hussain Khan complainant with respect to the specification of the currency notes, placing of the same at Chowk Khatwaan which were later on lifted by Muhammad Khan and identification of the same after recovery from the accused has not been recorded which is an important fact to make the case of the prosecution against the petitioner that of further inquiry. According to him it is simply surprising that Muhammad Khan petitioner‑accused was not armed when he reached Chowk Khatwaan to take the chance to pick the amount. On the contrary, learned State Counsel laid the emphasis that the deeper merits shall be considered and analysed during the trial, that it is a case of heinous nature and that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to bail. I would express that it is a case for the admission of Muhammad Khan petitioner to bail. The initial registration of the F.I.R. has not connected Muhammad Khan petitioner‑accused with the occurrence. It is through the specific episode of picking the amount of Rs.1,000 from Chowk Khatwaan that effort has been made to connect Muhammad Khan petitioner with the occurrence. However, it is surprising that Muhammad Khan petitioner arrived at that place without being armed with any weapon or accompanied by any other armed person to take the chance in the matter. Further at the specific entry of the case diary about conducting the raid the presence of the S.H.O., Police Station Jauhar Abad and the S.H.O., Police Station Noorpur Thal is mentioned, while their joining in the raid proceedings as well as the presence of Rafaqat Hussain and Shamshad Ali P.Ws. who are said to have attested the memo. of recovery is not incorporated therein which fact is enough to make doubtful their presence at the spot. The number of currency notes was also not incorporated in the case diary to tally the same afterwards in case of apprehension of the accused. It shall also not be out of place to record that the statement of Ali Hussain Khan complainant about placing the amount in the form of ten currency notes of hundred rupees each with the specific numbers and the identification of the same after the recovery from the' possession of Muhammad Khan accused has not been recorded and thus the proceedings of the aforesaid raid shall have to be viewed with caution. In consequence I hold that the case of the prosecution against Muhammad Khan petitioner‑accused is that of further inquiry and that it is a case for his admission to bail.

3. For what has been said above, I accept this application and admit Muhammad Khan petitioner‑accused to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Area Magistrate with the direction to appear before the learned trial Court on every date of hearing failing which the learned trial Court may cancel his bail. N.H.Q./M‑1065/L Bail allowed.