1995 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 468/471/411/412/420/34

Bail, grant of

Police while making a search of the house of the accused had not complied with the provisions of S.103, Cr. P.C.

Recovery of blank registration books from the house of accused, a clerk of Excise Department, did not provide the proof of Commission of the forgery against him

No other article or evidence was available to show involvement of accused in the case

Sections 468 & 471, P.P.C. were not cognizable by police

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. P L D 1964 (W.P.) Kar. 381 and 1991 P Cr. L J 2418 ref Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicant K.M. Nadeem, AA: G. and S. Amjad Ali Shah, AA.-G. for the State. Dates of hearing: 12th and 31st October 1994. Special Investigation Cell, Karachi East, sent a written complaint to Police Station Jamshed Quarters, District East Karachi, which was recorded as F.I.R. No.271/94 of Police Station Jamshed Quarters, by Inspector, Arif Jan Siddiqui. The facts given in this complaint are to the effect that one accused Muhammad Sabir was involved in Crime No.255/94 of Police Station Clifton and in Crime No.78/94 of Police Station Brigade, that he alongwith one M. Aslam Durrani had purchased the stolen cars from one Sardar alias Takar and one Ishtiaq. It further disclosed that with the help of present applicant Said Farooqui who is a Clerk in the Excise Office, and one Ilyas they had arranged forged documents of these cars and entrusted the same to one Abdul Wahab for the purpose of selling those cars. A Wahab produced three Suzuki cars before the Special Investigation Cell which were seized and the investigation was made, this complaint was thereafter registered against the present applicant and co-accused Ilyas for offence under sections 420, 468, 471, 411, 412 read with section 34, P.P.C. Present applicant was arrested and was challaned in this case. An application for his bail was moved before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East. The trial Judge rejected the same on 21-9-1994 and thereafter the applicant has come to this Court for grant of bail. The allegation against the present applicant is that the accused in the two previous cases have named him to be their colleague and that the police during the investigation of this case recovered from his house blank registration books and some seals. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is no evidence against the present applicant having forged the papers in respect of the stol6n cars in the other two cases and that the accused has not been involved in those cases. When this application was partly heard on 12-10-1994, Mr. K.M. Nadeem, A.A.-G. for the State had conceded to the grant of bail and had pointed out that the Investigating Officer in this case has misconduct himself as according to him the present case should have been entrusted to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, as the applicant was employee of Excise Department and he had also stated that he concedes to the grant of bail to. the applicant. Thereafter this Court wanted to seek explanation from Incharge Special Investigation Cell Mr. Arif Jan Siddiqui and the case was adjourned for his appearance but he did not appear. Finally arguments on bail application were concluded on 31-10-1994 when Mr. S. Amjad Ali Shah, AA.-G. for the State had appeared. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel and gone through the record of the case also. Before making search of the house of the applicant the po:ice did not comply with the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. and the police did not secure the attendance of persons of the locality to act as Mashirs in this case. The police has shown M. Ijaz and Ghulam Abbas, police employees members of S.I.C. as the first two Mashirs. Surprisingly third name of M. Aslam a Subzifrosh has also been added as a Mashir. The recovery of the blank registration books from the house of the Clerk of Excise Department does not provide the proof of commission of the forgery against the applicant. There is no other incriminating article shown in the recovery memo. No other evidence of the involvement of the present applicant has been pointed out by the learned AA G The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that investigation in this case is mala fide and as much as sections 468 and 471 are not cognizable by police under section 155(2), Cr. P.C. On this point the counsel for the applicant has relied on the case reported in P L D 1964 (W.P.) Karachi 381 and the case reported in 1991 P Cr. L J 2418. Under these circumstances, I consider that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. Consequently the applicant is allowed bail and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. N.H.Q./S-1105/K Bail allowed.