2012 PLP 729 (MLD)

SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

The petitioner Mst. Rifat Naz has sought post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.271 of 2011 dated 27-5-2011 registered under sections 365/382, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Pasrur District Sialkot.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that she along with her co-accused forcibly took away Mst. Rani Bibi mother of the complainant and snatched gold ornaments as well as cash of Rs.1,000 from her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner is false and fictitious one; that she has not committed the alleged offence; that her features were not given in the F.I.R. and she has been allegedly identified as culprit of this case during the test identification parade; that the vehicle allegedly used during the occurrence was recovered from the petitioner's husband, which was allegedly hired one; the alleged recovery or ornaments has not been effected on the pointation of the petitioner; that the petitioner has got a one year old suckling baby; that the case against the petitioner is of further inquiry as such she is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition and contended that the petitioner along with her co-accused forcibly abducted the mother of the complainant and extorted ornaments from her; that she was duly identified during the test identification parade and three cases of similar nature had already been registered against her, therefore, she is not entitled to the concession of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned D.P.-G. assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the record.

6. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R., however she was identified during the test identification parade being a lady who along with co-accused had extorted valuable articles from Mst. Rani Bibi, mother of the complainant. Later on the recovery of gold ornaments was allegedly effected from her but the recovery memo reveals that the brother of present petitioner produced the gold ornaments at police station. It is settled law that only such recoveries are admissible in evidence, which are effected on the pointation of the accused. In the instant case according to the recovery memo dated 13-6-2011 one Waqas, brother of the petitioner, brought a pair of two tolas gold bangles in the Police Station and the present petitioner informed the I.O. that the said bangles were the same which she had snatched during the occurrence and the I.O. took the same into possession vide recovery memo dated 13-6-2011 being the alleged recovered articles of this case. The aforesaid recovery was not effected on the pointation of the petitioner and is not a legal piece of evidence against the petitioner. By making such type of recoveries, the Investigating Officers usually intend to give benefit to the accused and try to damage the prosecution case. This trend is required to be curbed for the safe administration of justice. D.P.O. Sialkot is directed to look into the matter and proceed against the delinquent police officials.

7. The petitioner has got a suckling baby having the age of one year. The petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. and her features have not been given in the F.I.R. The alleged recovery of the articles has not been effected on the pointation of the petitioner as such, her case is one of further inquiry.

8. Therefore, the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. N.H.Q./R-55/L Bail allowed.