2003 PLP 1910 (YLR)

Pervaiz Qamar Butt for the State. Ghulam Shabbir petitioner through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 356 of 2001 dated 22-10-2001, under sections 458/380/411, P.P.C, Police Station City, Layyah.

2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. are that about one month prior to the registration of the case, the complainant Muhammad Khalid alongwith his brother Muhammad Farooq and mother Mst. Mukhtar Begum was present in his house. On the knock at the outer door it was opened. Thereafter, two unknown women entered into their house. They said to them that they were in need of house on rent. Two unknown persons, the features of whom have been given in the F. I. R. also entered the same with them. They took out dagger from their Dab and took Farooq P.W. inside the room on dagger point. They asked them to handover whatever they had with them. Their mother out of fear handed over to them the keys of the box. They and the women opened the iron-box and took away therefrom gold ornaments, cash amount Rs.11,600 and unstitched clothes total valued Rs.35,600 and then shut them in a room and bolted the door from outside and went away in a white colour Suzuki Car No.561/L.D.

3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in due to altercation with the S.H.O. concerned; that he is not nominated in the F.I.R; that there is delay of one month in lodging the F.I.R; that his no identification test has been held; that the recovery has been planted upon him to strengthen the prosecution case; that maximum the offence under section 411, P. P. C., is made out against him, even if the prosecution case is taken as true, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that he is behind the bars for the last 1-1/2 years and is previous non-convict; that his involvement in other cases is no ground to refuse him bail and in support of the same reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1997 SCMR 412.

4. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that the recovery has been effected from him; and that he is involved in a number of cases of similar type.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the record.

6. The fact remains that he is not named in the F.I.R. He was also not put to any identification test. There is delay of one month in lodging the P.I.R. all these facts make his case as one of further inquiry into his guilt. The same therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

7. As regards the alleged recovery from him, the same maximum can attract an offence under section 411, P.P.C. even if the prosecution case as it is taken as true. The same is not covered within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

8. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last 1-1/2 years and admittedly previously non-convict. His mere involvement in other cases would not come in his way to the grant of bail. In this regard reference is made to Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1997 SCMR 412.

9. In these circumstances, I accept this petition and admit him on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./G-259/L Bail granted.