2025 PLP 2444 (YLR)

Raja Shakeel Ahmed, J.

The above titled petition under section 497 Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner/accused for grant of post arrest bail. The petitioner/accused filed bail application before the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit which was declined by the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit vide order/judgment dated 06/01/2025. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed the instant petition for his post arrest bail which had been allowed vide my short order dated 11/02/2025.

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the FIR are that on 18-11-2024 at about 11:00 hrs, on spy information, the custom officials along with the police and intelligence officials conducted a raid to recover the goods imported from China which were concealed by the petitioner/accused and co-accused without payment of custom duty. During the raid the petitioner/accused along with other co-accused assaulted the government officials and prevented them from performing their official duties. The petitioner/accused and co-accused forcibly took the mobile phone of MI official Muhammad Tariq, used abusive language and also threatened the officials. Hence, the FIR No. 20/2024 has been registered against the petitioner/accused and his co-accused.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner/accused contended that the local police in connivance with the complainant registered above titled criminal case against the petitioner/ accused with mala fide intention. The petitioner/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. The petitioner/accused has no previous criminal record. The instant FIR is lodged with ulterior motive just to harass and humiliate the petitioner/ accused. The counsel for the petitioner/accused further contended that there is eight hours unexplained delay in registration of the FIR. The counsel for the petitioner/ accused further contended that the petitioner/accused filed Bail application before the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit and the same was dismissed by the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit vide order/ judgment dated 06/01/2025. He argued that the complainant has nominated the petitioner/ accused solely on the basis of his alleged presence at the place of occurrence, but the petitioner/accused has not committed any act against the government officials. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further argued that the case of prosecution falls under the ambit of further inquiry and the petitioner/accused has no concern, whatsoever with the commission of the alleged offences. He contended that the sections mentioned in the FIR do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, except section 392 P.P.C, which is not attracting in the instant case. He further contended that, no incriminating material or independent evidence is available on record against the petitioner/accused, making the prosecution's case highly doubtful. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused relied upon case law reported in 2007 YLR 1144 and 2010 YLR

587. Lastly, the learned counsel prayed that the instant bail petition be accepted and the petitioner/accused be admitted to bail in the interest of justice.

4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General (DAG) vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and submitted that the petitioner/accused is specifically nominated in the FIR with a clearly assigned role in the commission of the alleged offence. The learned DAG further contended that the prosecution witnesses (PWs) have directly implicated the petitioner/accused in connection with the alleged offences. It was also submitted that the police and customs officials recovered the smuggled goods, which had been imported from China and concealed by the petitioner/accused in collaboration with the co-accused. He further argued that Section 392 P.P.C is attracted in the present case and falls within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Lastly, the learned DAG prayed for the dismissal of the instant post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner/ accused, to meet the ends of justice.

5. I have heard the arguments pro and contra at length and perused the record of the case along with relevant provision of the law, with the valuable assistance of counsels for the parties.

6. The FIR is logged after delay of eight hours without any plausible explanation, wherein the present accused petitioner is not directly nominated in the FIR. None of the nominated accused in the FIR along with other 35 persons either been arrested or investigated by the police in the instant case. The learned DAG when confronted with this fact, he failed to satisfy the court why the police have arrested the present accused despite the fact that, his name is not reflected in the FIR. The conduct of IO in the investigation of present case seems to have been malafide with the present accused, which makes the case of the prosecution as one of further inquiry. All the other offence except the section 392 P.P.C are bailable and the section 392 in the instant case not attracted to the extent of present accused/petitioner. No recovery has been made from the accused during investigation by the police. The investigation of case is completed. The accused is behind the bar since his arrest and not required for any further investigation and there is no chance of tempering by petitioner with the prosecution evidence if he is released on bail, as such no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period because, so far the prosecution has failed to submit the complete challan before the trial Court.

7. Considering all above aspects of the case, the bail is granted to the accused/petitioner vide my short order dated 11/02/2025 subject to his furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Vacation Judicial Magistrate at Gilgit. These are the reasons for grant of bail to the petitioner/ accused.

8. Before parting this judgment, it is clarified that the above observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall not have any bearing upon the pending proceedings. The trial Court may reach its own conclusions after recording evidences in the case. This Petition disposed of accordingly. File. JK/10/GB Bail granted.