2003 PLP 715 (YLR)

Abdul Waheed Siddiqui for Applicant. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar for the State. This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Qaim Din who is accused in Crime No. 71 of 2000 , Police Station, Sehwan under sections 457, 380, P.P.C. read with section 14 of Hudood Ordinance. The facts of the case in brief are that complainant Talib Hussain Solangi who happens to be the Chowkidar in the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Sehwan lodged F.I.R. that he alongwith other Chowkidars namely Wazir Panhwar, Qaim Panhar and Ali Khan was sleeping at the roof of the Court building. At 12‑30 a.m. they woke up on some noise and saw that accused Altaf Lashari who happened to be the Naik of Judicial Magistrate and two other un identified persons were running towards eastern side. They found that the lock of the property room of 1st Civil Judge, Sehwan was broken. They communicated such information to the higher Officers. Clerk Ashique Ali who checked the property room, found that 8 country‑made pistols alongwith 14 cartridges, one single barrel gun alongwith 8 cartridges, one rifle with seven bullets, 3 golden rings valued Rs. 3,000 and cash of Rs. 3,243 were missing. The bail application moved before the learned 1st Civil Judge and F.C.M., Sehwan was rejected and the bail application moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sehwan was also dismissed. I have heard Mr. Abdul Waheed Siddiqui learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar for the State. The evidence against the accused is that after recording the F.I.R. of the incident on 28‑8‑2000 at 12‑00 hours complainant Talib Hussain gave a further statement before the police which was recorded on 28‑8‑2000 at 14‑00 hours i.e. 2 hours after the lodging of the F.I.R. In his statement the complainant further stated that in the F.I.R. he has wrongly narrated that Qaim Din Panhwar was also sleeping with them at the roof top. In fact the applicant Qaim Din has left the place of duty at 8‑00 p.m. and at the time of .incident Qaim Din Panhwar alongwith Altaf Lashari and one other person were seen by him running away. By virtue of this statement made by the complainant the applicant was made accused in this case and was arrested on 9‑9‑2000. After his arrest the stolen property i.e. currency notes of different denominations amounting to Rs.1,243 were recovered from applicant Qaim Din, vide memo. of recovery dated 25‑9‑2000 at 09‑30 hours in presence of Mashirs who are police constables. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged after the delay of about 11 hours, but I feel that the delay per se is not fatal. Naturally because it was a Court property, therefore, the matter would have been brought to the notice of other authorities and then the F.I.R. would have been lodged. However, the complainant had damaged the entire case by giving a false statement in the F.I.R: and subsequently recording further statement before police just after two hours of the lodging of the F.I.R. thereby controverting the contents of F.I.R. Contradictory versions given by the complainant have caused fatal blows to the case of prosecution. The perusal of the Mashimama of recovery does not contain the denomination of the currency notes alleged to have been recovered from the applicant. The recovery has been effected nearly after a month of the lodging of the F. I. R. and 15 days after the arrest of the applicant. Thus the recovery appears to be doubtful. In the above circumstances the case of the applicant is of further inquiry as provided under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. I, therefore, grant bail to the accused in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Before parting with this order I would like to observe that the version in the F.I.R. shows that instead of performing their duties at night time the Chowkidars of different Courts were sleeping over the roof of the Court which is apparently an act of misconduct. A copy of this order be sent to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dadu for taking appropriate action in the matter. It is understood that departmental proceedings against delinquent employees would have already been initiated. Law is settled on the point that the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are distinct and different in nature, those can go side by side and will have no bearing of each other. Needless to mention that the departmental proceedings against the delinquent persons will not in any manner be affected by the observations made in this bail order as it is the well‑settled law that even acquittal in criminal cases is no bar in conducting departmental proceedings. It is desired that the staff members found guilty are awarded major penalty as provided under the relevant rules. It is further expected that such effective measures are taken by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dadu that no such incident occurs in future. S.M.A.H./Q‑33/K Bail granted.