2009 P Cr (PLP)

RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.

The petitioners have sought their post-arrest bail in case F. I. R.No.299, dated 27-7-2008 for offences under sections 458, 395, 412, P.P.C. and 20 Harraba, Police Station Shahzad "Town, Islamabad.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 does not press this petition to the extent of Babar Hussain, petitioner No.2, therefore, hail petition to the extent of petitioner No.2 stands dismissed as withdrawn.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused while armed with fire arm weapons committed dacoity in the house of the complainant and snatched away different articles.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the occurrence took place on 19-7-2008 whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 27-7-2008 after a delay of 8 days for which no explanation has been given; that no identification parade has been conducted in this case. He further submitted that complainant remained silent for a considerable time which makes the prosecution story doubtful; that no alleged looted property could be recovered from present petitioner during investigation; that section 395, P.P.C. does not attract to the extent of present petitioner; that petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and there is no progress in the trial so far; that petitioner is previously non-convict.

5. Learned Federal Counsel strongly opposed the bail Petition on the ground that petitioner was the member of the gang who committed dacoity in the house of the complainant, however, he conceded that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the present petitioner.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and have perused the record.

7. Admittedly, there is a delay of 7 days in lodging the F.I.R. which is fatal for the prosecution and no explanation has been given for such a delay, despite the fact that police station is about two kilometers away from the place of occurrence. Surprising aspect of the case is that according to prosecution story during the resistance at the time of occurrence the mufflers were removed from the faces even then complainant did not nominate the persons on very first day and they have later on involved on receiving some information whereas no source of' information has been given which makes the case of petitioner as doubtful.

8. After the arrest petitioner was never put to the test of identification to rule out the possibility of his false involvement. Although petitioner remain involved in some other cases of similar nature but no conviction has been passed in any case.

9. Petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. Challan has yet not been submitted in the Court. Prima facie it appears to be a case of further inquiry which falls under the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The benefit of doubt arising in the case can be given even at bail stage. Bail cannot be withheld as a punishment. Investigation of the case has been completed and petitioner is no more required for further investigation and his further detention in jail will serve no useful purpose to the prosecution.

10. For what has been discussed above this petition is allowed and petitioner Nazir Khan is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.I,00,000 with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court H.B.T./N-34/Isl. Bail granted.