2016 PLP 1316 (MLD)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioners/accused were booked for the above offences vide FIR No.19 of 2011 of Police Station KKH Chilas registered under section 392/109, P.P.C.

2. The petitioners/accused applied for bail before this Court but the concession of bail was declined to them vide order/judgment dated 15.11.2015, with the direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial before summer vacations.

3. Since trial of the petitioners/accused could not be completed within the stipulated period, therefore, the petitioners/accused again approached this Court for concession of bail.

4. All the details of the occurrence have been highlighted in the detailed judgments of learned Judicial Magistrate and also of this Court, therefore, these details are not being reproduced to avoid repetition of the facts, as it is a second bail application on fresh grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that on 15.11.2015, the directives were issued by this Court to conclude trial before summer vacations, but the directives of the Court have not been followed, which entitles the petitioners/accused for the concession of bail.

6. On merits of the case, the learned counsel submitted that the case is false and there is no worth reliance evidence to connect the petitioners/accused with the crime. The learned counsel submitted that the recovery of cash amount from the petitioners is result of padding and planting. Further that the petitioner/accused namely Sher Hussain nominated in the FIR has been released by the police under section 169, Cr.P.C., whereas the petitioners/accused Mir Hussain, Ashraf and Ehsanullah are not nominated in the FIR nor any identification parade was held, which was a legal requirement to connect the petitioners with the crime and their case is one of the further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

7. On the other hand the learned Dy.A.G. vehemently opposed the petitioner and submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 14.7.2015 and after two days of their arrest, the recovery of cash extorted from the complainant has been recovered from all the petitioners/accused. He submitted that the I.O. recovered Rs. 15000/- from the petitioner/ accused Mir Hussain, Rs. 14850/- from petitioner/accused Ashraf and Rs. 14000/- has been recovered from petitioner/accused Ehsan Ullah. Per learned Dy.A.G., there was no previous enmity or ill will on the part of complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner/accused. When asked regarding non-conducting of identification parade, the learned Dy. A.G. stated that the petitioners/accused were identified by the complainant in Police Station.

8. I heard both the parties at a considerable length and perused the record of the case with care and caution.

9. The petitioners namely Mir Hussain, Ashraf and Ehsan Ullah are not nominated in the FIR. They were arrested on 14.7.2015 and after exhausting the remand period, they were committed to judicial lockup. The features of the petitioners were not given in FIR. It was mandatory for the investigating officer to arrange an identification parade through complainant to connect the petitioner with the crime. Mere recovery of some cash amount will not connect the petitioners named above with the alleged crime. Their case being one of the further inquiry, they are admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00000/- (Rupees ten lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. However, the case of the petitioner/accused Gayas Ahmad son of Mansoor is at different footing. He is directly charged in FIR and from the evidence read out in the open Court it seems that, he was the master mind of this episode. A sum of Rs.14000/- has also been recovered from his possession, which is a further corroboratory piece of evidence.

10. From tentative assessment of evidence, the petitioner/accused Gayas Ahmad's involvement is prima facie evident and the discretion cannot be exercised in his favour. Bail petition up to his extent is declined.

11. The observations on bail orders are always tentative and limited only up to the disposal of bail petition and either of the parties cannot use any observation made by the Court in bail granting/refusing order in any proceeding/trial.

12. Short order was announced in the Court after hearing the parties and these are the reasons for the same. HBT/31/GB Order accordingly.