2019 P Cr (PLP)

RAJA SAJJAD AHMAD KHAN, J.

Babar Rasheed, accused-petitioner, has filed this revision petition for grant of bail in a case registered against him and co-accused (not before me) in offences under sections 337-A, 458, 506, 34, A.P.C. and 20, E.H.A at City Police Station, Rawalakot. The alleged occurrence took place on 07.03.2019 at 12:30 a.m. and FIR No.65/2019 was lodged by Umer Razzaq, complainant on the same day at 5:00 a.m. It was alleged that complainant was running a business of cloths at Khrik. On 07.03.2019 at about 12.30 a.m. the complainant was sleeping in a room of his house when three face masked persons armed with .30-bore pistols opened the door and entered in the house. One of the face mask person threatened him by fixing pistol at his parquets that he will done to death if he will trying to speak while other face mask person caught hold him and third face mask person forcibly picked up Rs.7500/-from his right pocket door at pistol point and ordered to hand over the amount and ornaments present in the house. The complainant told them there was no money or ornaments in the house, upon which they roped him with bed sheet and said that if he will try, he will done to death. Thereafter they went outside from the room for searching house, the complainant opened himself and tried to lock the door, upon which one of face mask person who placed a pistol upon his parquets, opened the door by pushing it, and hit him at his head with butt of 30-bore pistol. The complainant made hue and cry, upon which his father rushed towards him, and they caught hold the one face mask persons while his sisters Sobia and Sabiah bolted the door. When they put down face mask of said person, it came into knowledge that he was his neighbor Babar Rasheed son of Abdul Hussain who disclosed the name of other fleeing away face mask persons as Tahir Yaqoob son of Mohammad Yaqoob and Yameen son of Abdul Qayyum.

2. The accused-petitioner and co-accused were arrested. The present accused petitioner applied for bail before Additional Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Court No.II, Rawalakot which was refused to him vide order dated 15.03.2019 while his second bail application was also dismissed by Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot vide impugned order dated 28.03.2019; hence, this revision petition.

3. Syed Sohaib Hussain Shah, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner, reiterated the grounds already made in the revision petition vehemently argued that the petitioner was implicated in a false case purely on mala fide on the part of complainant because the occurrence was doubtful whereas he has committed no offence. The learned counsel further argued that the accused petitioner is behind the bar since for the last more than two months whereas challan has been submitted before the trial Court meaning thereby that he is not required for further investigation. The learned counsel pointed out that no recovery is required from the accused petitioner and prima facie case against him was a matter of further probe. He submitted that the detention of the petitioner will serve no useful purpose at all and it is settled principle of law that bail cannot be withheld as punishment. The learned Advocate finally submitted that by accepting the revision petition, the accused-petitioner may be granted bail.

4. Conversely, Sardar Javed Nisar, the learned Counsel for the complainant and learned Assistant Advocate General, controverted the arguments raised by learned Advocate for the accused-petitioner and submitted that accused-petitioner is fully involved in the case because he has been nominated in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner is ascribed specific role of causing grievous injury at the head of complainant with butt of pistol and the weapon was recovered from him. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner committed the offence in odd hours of night and he was caught red handed. The learned Counsel submitted that prima facie accused-petitioner is connected with the commission of crime and he is not entitled to the concession of bail, thus the Courts below did not commit any illegality while rejecting the bail. The learned counsel defended the impugned order on all counts and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 6.(sic.) I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties as well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and gone through the record of the case.

7. The accused-petitioner seeks bail after arrest and it is, now, well settled principle of law governing the bail matters that at bail stage a tentative assessment of the record has to be taken into consideration and deep scrutiny of the evidence is neither permissible nor desirable, but at the same time, the Courts are not expected to pass a bail order in vacuum. Whatever material is available on record, the Court has to scrutinize the same and form tentative opinion on its basis.

8. In the instant case, from perusal of record reveals that occurrence took place in odd hours of night in the house of complainant where the accused was caught red handed and disclosed other accused involved along with him in the occurrence, therefore, identification of the accused and false accusation is not in doubt. Specific role of causing injury to the complainant was ascribed against him. Weapon of offence and stolen money were recovered at his instance. He was already convicted. The allegation of committing offence against the petitioner is covered by Prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr,P.C., hence he is not entitled for grant of bail. Before parting with the order, it may be observed that any observation in this order, being purely tentative in nature, shall in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court where the case be decided strictly on its own merits after recording evidence. SA/8/Sh.C.(AJ&K) Bail refused.