2010 PLP 1768 (MLD)

HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.

Muhammad Madni son of Muhammad Yousaf through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.341 dated 3-9-2007, registered with Police Station Daira Raheem, District Sahiwal, at the instance of Muhammad Anwar Shad, for offences under sections 392/411, P.P.C. Petitioner has been declined bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, vide order dated 8-8-2009, hence this petition.

2. Brief story, as narrated in the F.I.R., was that on 14-8-2007 at about 1-40 pm, while the Vehicle No.SLO-6771 was being driven by Muhammad Iqbal and Shabbir Ali, helper, near Harappa By-pass, petitioner along with his other co-accused who were riding on a 2-D vehicle commanded the complainant to stop the vehicle and on pistol-point snatched Mobile phones and an amount in cash of cash of Rs.12,536 from them and drove away front the place of occurrence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is an unexplained delay of 20 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.; that no description for identification of the petitioner or other accused is given nor any identification parade was held; supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 3-9-2007 after 20 days of registration of the case that allegedly joint recovery of one mobile phone was effected from three accused which is not permissible under the law; that the petitioner is in judicial-lock up since 14-9-2008. Places reliance on the cases reported as Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1997 SCMR 412), Mumtaz alias Bholi and another v. State (PLJ 2004 Cr.C. Lahore 633), Khalid Mehmod v. The State 2005 YLR 1668 Lahore) and Muhammad Tariq v., The State (2000 PCr.LJ 1840-Lahore).

4. Learned DDPP on behalf of the State opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by contending that the petitioner has committed heinous offence of dacoity which is a menace for society therefore he is no entitled to be release don bail.

5. I have heard the parties and perused the records. Initially the case was registered under section 382, P.P.C., but after recording supplementary statement of the complainant section 392/411, P.P.C. were added. In this case, only recovery of a mobile phone was effected. Challan was submitted on 15-9-2008. When the DDPP was confronted with the question what was the progress in the trial of the case, he replied that he had no knowledge about it. The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly relied on the case of Muhammad Rafique 1997 SCMR 412), supra, relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:-- "It has not come on the record, as to why identification test of the petitioner through eye-witnesses was not held when his name did not appear in the F.I.R., Mere production by the petitioner before the police of some cash alleged to have been obtained by robbery, in absence of any other evidence." The facts of the case in hand are identical to those of the cited case, wherein bail was allowed by the honourable Supreme Court.

6. For the reasons discussed above and in view of the cited case law, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Ruees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-748/L Bail granted.