2012 PLP 814 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.

The applicants have applied post-arrest bail in Crime No. 49 of 2011, Police Station Kot Laloo, lodged under sections 395 and 215 P.P.C.

2. The bail application was moved in the trial court, but it was dismissed vide order dated 17-9-2011.

3. The brief facts are that complainant runs the business of Goods Transport and used to deliver new vehicles from one place to another. He along with Ghulam Moinuddin Pathan proceeded towards Lahore for delivering a Car GLI. when they crossed Kot Laloo, they saw one Hyundai Car NO-AUC-799 which was coming behind them. On 3-8-2011, at 1-30 p.m., when the complainant reached Paryo Mari, the above said car came in front of his car and five accused persons alighted, who were identified as Zahid Maseeh armed with TT pistol, Denial Saddique with TT pistol, Malik Aslam with pistol and two unidentified accused persons, thereafter, the accused persons with show of weapons snatched the car and went away towards northern side. The complainant made efforts for return of robbed car and contacted accused Malik Aslam on mobile phone, who demanded the ransom/bhung amount of Rs.6,00,000, then on 18-8-2011, the complainant along with Ghulam Moinuddin approached the applicant Malik Aslam and at 3-00 p.m, they met with applicants Malik Aslam and Zahid at Kot Laloo near Daheri Petrol pump in the Hotel and paid bhung/ransom amount of Rs.400,000 for return of robbed car, after receiving the Bung amount, the accused persons asked them that they will return the car after two days and further asked them to arrange the remaining amount. After arrangement of remaining amount, he again contacted to the applicant Malik Aslam on Mobile Phone, but accused persons refused to return the vehicle so also bhung/ ransom amount.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case due to business enmity. There is at least 22 days delay in lodging of F.I.R. and no plausible explanation has been shown. The F.I.R. was registered after due deliberation and consultation to falsely involve the applicants in the crime. He further argued that applicant Malik Aslam is engaged in business of Goods Transport and another applicant Zahid Maseeh is his employee and due to some business rivalry, complainant has implicated the applicants. The learned counsel further argued that real facts are that there is dispute between the complainant and another company at Lahore, which the complainant wanted to resolve through applicants, but the same could not be resolved. He further argued that the alleged incident took place on 3-8-2011, but the complainant failed to report the matter to the police promptly which creates serious doubts. No car was recovered from the applicants. The learned counsel finally concluded that keeping in view above facts, case of the applicants requires further inquiry and they are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. The learned A.P.-G. argued that since names of both the applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. with specific role and it is also mentioned that the complainant paid bhung/ransom amount to them, therefore, at this stage, applicants are not entitled to be released on bail and he opposed the bail application.

6. It is an admitted fact that in the F.I.R., complainant reported an incident which took place on 3-8-2011, but he lodged F.I.R. on 25-8-2011 with delay of 22 days. Though the names of both the applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. but it is a fact that no recovery of car was effected from them. The complainant stated in the F.I.R. that he contacted accused Malik Aslam on mobile phone but it is no where mentioned that how he knows him and how he obtained his mobile phone number. It is also a fact that no mobile phone number is mentioned in the F.I.R. on which the complainant contacted Malik Aslam. In the bail application, the applicants pointed some business rivalry but no such facts have been mentioned in F.I.R. if the complainant knew the applicants before lodging the F.I.R. or occurrence of incident. The complainant stated that he paid rupees four lacs to the applicants in the hotel, but no name of any hotel is mentioned in the F.I.R. Complainant also failed to explain as to why he waited for a long time to report this incident to the police. Though under section 154, Cr.P.C; it is the responsibility and obligation of police officer to immediately record the statement of a person reporting any incident but at the same time, it is also responsibility of every person/citizen to immediately lodge the F.I.R for every cognizable offence so that law may be set into motion and action may be taken against the criminals, but in this case, the complainant not only waited for a long time but he himself contacted to the applicants and decide a deal to pay ransom/bhung amount as if it was not a crime but a contractual obligations between them and after a long time, F.I.R. was lodged. The complainant has failed to explain any compelling or convincing circumstances under which he was prevented or precluded not to lodge the F.I.R. promptly, except that he himself tried to resolve dispute after making payment of rupees four lacs as bhung/ransom to the applicants which creates reasonable doubts and at this stage possibility of false involvement of the applicants cannot be ruled out. Both the applicants are charged with offences under sections 215 and 395 P.P.C. Section 215, P.P.C. is a bailable offence and so far as section 395, P.P.C. is concerned, it provides that whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which shill not be less than four years nor more than 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. In this regard, the learned counsel for the applicants referred to a bail order of this court, reported in 2006 YLR 3167 (Shehzore v. State) in which it was held that section 395, P.P.C. provides that whoever commits Dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall nor be less than four years nor more than ten years and shall also be liable to fine. The sentence not less than four years was incorporated by Ordinance III of 1980 on 3rd February, 1980 which make the intention of the legislature very clear that when the case is registered under section 395, P.P.C. the court cannot award sentence less than four years and can award sentence not more than ten years. When alternate sentence has been provided then lesser sentence should be considered by the court. The learned Single Judge following the principle laid down in 1985 PCr.LJ 2048 and 1994 PCr.LJ 2340, admitted the applicants to bail.

7. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, I have reached to a conclusion that the case of applicants requires further inquiry. Consequently this bail application is allowed and the applicants are granted bail subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two lacs) each with PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The above findings are tentative in nature and shall not affect the case of prosecution. M.W.A./Z-4/K Bail granted.