2013 PLP 1046 (YLR)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

Umar Farooq (petitioner) seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.1504 of 2011 dated 27-9-2011 under section 392, 411, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad.

2. Three unknown veiled accused entered the house of the complainant, rendered the inmates of the house hostages and snatched lap top, wrist watch, cash Rs.20,000 and gold ornaments weighing two tolas from them at gunpoint; on showing resistance by the complainant, the veils of two of the accused were removed who were identified by the complainant as Usman and Kashif, whereas the third accused escaped unidentified.

3. The complainant got recorded supplementary statement on 17-10-2011 with the contention that he had been searching for the third accused and learnt through his resources that it was Umar Farooq (petitioner) who had been in the company of the nominated co-dacoits at the time of alleged occurrence:

4. Usman and Kashif were arrested on 7-10-2011 and they led to the recovery of a few looted articles on 16-10-2011. They disclosed before the Investigating Officer that their third companion was Umar Farooq, the petitioner who had received the lap-top and cash Rs.10,000 as his share.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to malice and ulterior motives of the complainant; the petitioner is the next door neighbour of the complainant and he is a student of 4th year; the petitioner and his family had direct enmity with the alleged eye-witness Shahid Mehmood as his real brother Fahad along with others had been proceeded against under section 107, 151 Cr.P.C on 17-2-2010 by the police on the complaint of the petitioner who was also booked under the same provision of the Criminal Procedure Code along with certain others, the same day; it was said Shahid Mehmood who persuaded the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in the instant case.

6. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that sufficient incriminating evidence is available against the petitioner as he had closed liaison with the nominated co-accused and the Investigating Officer had collected the call-log of his cell phone which established his link with Usman accused; the petitioner after having committed the occurrence received his share off the looted property and according to the disclosure made by his co-accused, the laptop and cash were in his possession which were still to be recovered.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is found that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., nor in the statements of witnesses Muhammad Nawaz and Shahid Mehmood. The record reveals that the petitioner moved an application before the S.H.O, Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad with the contention that he had been looted at gunpoint by four unknown accused at 8-00 p.m. on 16-2-2010, one out of whom, namely Ali Cheema was identified by him at the time of occurrence. This application led to the initiation of proceedings under sections 107, 151 Cr.P.C. against Umar Farooq (petitioner) and three others on one side and Fahad Mehmood, the real brother of eye-witness Shahid Mehmood (of this case) and four others on the other side. This is how, the cited witness Shahid Mehmood may be biased against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer has failed to collect any viable connecting evidence against the petitioner so far. He has been banking on the statements of the co-accused of the petitioner who allegedly disclosed before him that their third companion was Umar Farooq (petitioner) who had received from them a laptop and some cash as his share. The petitioner is admittedly, the next door neighbour of the complainant. He is a student of 4th year in G.C. University, Faisalabad, as is evident from his roll-number slip. The call-log pertaining to the cell phone of the petitioner may show a contact between the petitioner and the nominated co-accused but what was this all about, could only be resolved during the course of the trial. Even otherwise no evidence is available to rely upon this particular piece of evidence at this stage. At one stage of investigation, as is manifest from case diary dated 21-11-2011, the complainant adopted the version that Umar Farooq petitioner who was his neighbour had abetted his co-accused in the commission of the above said crime. There exists no evidence to believe this particular version of the complainant. It may not be without substance when learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, due to previous heartburning, Shahid Mehmood (witness) prevailed upon the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in the instant case. Prima facie the case of the petitioner is open to further probe as envisaged by section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this application is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 2-12-2011 is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. MWA/U-1/L Pre-arrest bail confirmed.