2011 PLP 727 (YLR)

SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.

F.I.R. No.927 of 2010 was recorded at Police Station Shahra-e-Faisal, Gulshan Town on 1-1'0-2010. Complainant was one Abdul Sattar, Manager Gulshan-e-Iqbal Branch of Soneri Bank. He stated that at about 1015 Hours five accused persons entered the bank, maltreated security guard and snatched pistol from him. Second security guard who was sitting near stairs was also maltreated and from him repeater was snatched. Thereafter while one of the accused persons stood guard at the gate of the bank, the other four persons took out cash of more than Rs.2.3 millions from the cash counter and the strong room as well as four mobile phones and made good their escape along with repeater of the security guard. Present applicant was arrested in another F.I.R. and it is claimed that during investigation he admitted his guilt and led to recovery of Rs.50,000 from his house. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that recovery shown is of packet of Rs. 50,000 bearing stamp of Soneri Bank and such packet was not confronted at the time of identification parade. He also submitted that there was no independent witness of recovery. He relied upon Khadim Hussain v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 1408), Habibur Rehman and another v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 1773), Farman Ali v. The State (1997 SCMR 971), Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi v. State through Chairman, NAB, Islamabad PLD 2003 SC 668 and Muhammad Asif v. The State (1998 MLD 1549). Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani learned A.P.-G. submitted that although statement before the police is not admissible as evidence but if it leads to recovery it can be used for the purpose of establishing guilt of accused. He further submitted that there, is cash recovered of Soneri Bank with Soneri Bank stamp on packet and applicant has failed to explain about bundle of cash. Bail application was dismissed by the Court below for the following reasons: "From the perusal of record it shows that applicants/accused were arrested after police encounter. Thereafter on their admissions and recovery of dacoity amount arrested in this bank dacoity case. Police recovered Rs.50,000 on the pointation of accused Khawar Shah from his house. Rs.100,000 were recovered from the house of accused Salman on his pointation while Rs.50,000 was recovered from the house of accused Hanif Bangash on his pointation. The contention of learned counsel for the accused that recovery of robbed amount have been foisted upon the accused persons has no force as on all recovered bundles of notes the seal of Soneri Bank is affixed. P.W. Asif has identified the accused Salman during identification test. The witnesses have fully implicated the accused with the commission of offence. Counsel for the applicants/accused failed to point out any enmity of police with the accused persons. The F.I.R. has been lodged promptly and the offence fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The involvement of the present applicants/accused in the commission of offence of bank dacoity cannot be ruled out. It is not appealable to a prudent mind that to falsely implicate the applicants/accused in respect of robbed amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Imtiaz Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 545) has held that Court in bail matter has to make a distinction between an offence which is committed against an individual and an offence which is directed against the society as a whole and in the letter category of cases, has to be strict in exercise of discretion of bail. The law and order situation of the city is deteriorating day by day and the peoples are depriving from their valuable articles/cash, if at this stage bail is granted to the applicant then they will repeat the same offence I have also taken guidance from the case-law reported in 2008 SCMR

807. After going through the record I have come to the conclusion that the applicants are prima-facie connected with the commission of offence. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for accused are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case." I have considered submissions of learned counsel and have also gone through the record. When this matter came up for hearing on 30-12-2010 I.O. was directed to produce Closed Circuit Television Camera (CCTV) photographs. Today I.O. has brought not only C.D. of the CCTV Camera but has also brought as many as 14 photographs taken from the C.D. I.O. candidly states that the present applicant does not appear in any of the photographs. He is also not seen in the video. When confronted with this position Mr. Jalbani learned A.P.-G. states that present applicant could have remained out of gate of bank because it is admitted position that camera records all entrance in the bank. In the F.I.R. it is not stated that any one culprit stayed outside the gate of bank. In fact it is clearly stated that the five accused persons entered into bank. This clearly creates doubt. It is settled law that benefit of any doubt must be given even at the bail stage. Consequently, this bail appli?cation is allowed and applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P.R. Bond and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-10/K??????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.