1998 P Cr (PLP)

Mian Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner. Malik Abdul Salam for the State. A case under section 420/337-J/392, P.P.C. is registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station Saddar Renala Khurd, District Okara vide F.I.R. No. 136, dated 27-4-1997 on the ground that the petitioner with three others while travelling in a taxi cab gave some intoxicated biscuits to the complainant and his brother while all of them were travelling in the cab. The complainant and his brother fell unconscious and in the meanwhile, they were deprived of Rs.10,45,000 which they were carrying in their pockets after having drawn from different banks at Lahore.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R. was delayed by about 12 days without any plausible explanation; that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner as his co-accused Muhammad Younas had served tea to the complainant and his brother with the intoxicated biscuits; that there was no proper identification of the petitioner and as such, the case against him was doubtful; that the provisions under section 392, P.P.C. were not attracted as the petitioner was not armed with any weapon nor it is so alleged even in the F.I.R.; lastly, it was contended that the petitioner was not previous convict and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last several months.

3. The learned counsel for the State has stated that the delay in filing the F.I.R. is explained by the complainant as he regained consciousness after three or four days of the occurrence. Thereafter, they have been looking for the culprits who had deprived them of their money and had located a gang of cheats of which the petitioner was one of the member. Hence it was submitted that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. having been explained does not remain to be crucial so as to create any extenuating circumstance for the petitioner. It was also contended that though the petitioner is not a previous convict but his co-accused namely Muhammad Younas and Mushtaq Ahmad are involved in some other cases of similar nature and are yet at large. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage.

4. I have considered the foregoing submission and find that the provisions of section 392, P.P.C. are not prima facie attracted to the facts of this case. There is delay of 12 days in lodging the F.I.R. The mere fact that the co-accused namely Muhammad Younas and Mushtaq Ahmad had played the main role and have not since been arrested would not disentitle the petitioner to the concession of bail particularly when no active role is attributed to him qua his co-accused. It has not been explained by the learned counsel for the State as to why the two other co-accused have not so far been arrested although their antecedents are not very clean as they are involved in some other cases of similar nature and had also been attributed active role in this case. In such a situation, and particularly when the petitioner was not attributed any overt act as compared to his co accused, he has a case of further enquiry.

6. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in a bit heavier amount keeping in view the circumstances of this case. The petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes two sureties of Rs.3,00,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-245/L Bail granted.