2006 PLP 3168 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.404, dated 6-8-2005, registered under section 392, P.P.C. at Police Station Aroop District Gujranwala on the application of Sajjad Ahmad.

2. The brief allegation against the petitioner is that on 27-7-2005 at about 9-00 p.m. the complainant and his brother Muhammad Ashraf were present on his shop. All of a sudden, two persons with muffled faces while armed with fire-arms entered in the shop. One of them pointed out pistol towards the complainant while the other started searching the cash box and also took out Rs.8,000 therefrom. They also snatched Rs.4,000 along with Nokia Mobile Phone from the complainant and Rs.1,500 on gun point from the pocket of Muhammad Ashraf brother of the complainant by force. According to the complainant the assailants while fleeing had tried to close the shutter of the shop and during the said process muffle of one of the accused was removed who was identified as Khawar petitioner whose father later on also approached the complainant for compromise.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case has been registered with the delay of 10 days and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner while the complainant and the other witnesses have sworn affidavits in favour of the petitioner in which they have exonerated the petitioner as one of the accused. It is also contended that no identification parade has been conducted in the present case.

4. Learned State counsel on the other hand opposes this petition on the ground that mobile phone which was taken away by the accused at the time of commission of dacoity has been recovered at the behest of the petitioner and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution.

6. Admittedly the complainant had no enmity or ill-will or grudge to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case and his name was mentioned as an accused who had committed the dacoity by the complainant in his statement. During the investigation when the petitioner was arrested a mobile phone has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, hence, prima facie section 392, P.P.C. is made out against the petitioner which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the A affidavits sworn by the complainant and the witnesses cannot be taken into consideration as it is generally noticed that the people are usually reluctant to appear in the Courts for making statements against the dacoits due to the fear and at this stage it cannot be said that the said affidavits have been sworn independently by the complainant and the other witnesses.

7. In the above circumstances, I don't find it a fit case for grant of bail, hence, this application having no merits is dismissed. H.B.T./M-473/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.