2011 PLP 930 (MLD)

KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, J.

The petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. NO. 490 dated 3-9-2008 under sections 381, 411 34 P.P.C. registered at Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the occurrence is dated 5-6-2008 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 3-9-2008 and there is un-explained delay in lodging of the F.I.R after 3-1/2 month of the occurrence and the explanation furnished by the complainant does not appeal to reason. He contended that occurrence allegedly had taken place and the articles valuing about more than one crore have been misplaced then how it is possible that the complainant did not report the matter for the long three months to the police. He further contended that the only evidence against the petitioner extra judicial confession and the recovery. To the extent of extra judicial confession, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the F.I.R. it was alleged that the petitioner had allegedly confessed before Jhehangir and Shahid witnesses but neither the police recorded the statements of said witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. nor even placed them in column of the witnesses in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. As far as the recovery is concerned, he contended that recovery of Rs.5,000 is of no help to the prosecution and the other recovery of finger ring and four watches allegedly also do not connect the petitioner with the crime. He further contended that the finger ring is owned by the wife of the petitioner while the recovery of four watches is fictitious and even otherwise there is no proof that these articles belong to the complainant. Further contended that the petitioner was arrested on 15-9-2008 and is behind the bars for almost one year and nine months but so far there is no probability of the conclusion of the trial in the near future and no body can be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period.

3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel as well as complainant himself opposed the petitioner.

4. Arguments heard; record perused.

5. It is not denied that allegedly, the articles valuing more than one crore had been stolen away by the un known persons in absence of the complainant and his family members but the matter was reported to the police after more than three months. The explanation furnished by the complainant itself is a question of further inquiry since if the articles of such a huge amount have been stolen, a man of prudent mind cannot wait for three months for lodging of the F.I.R. This aspect itself requires further inquiry. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that the petitioner and the other accused in presence of Jehangir and Shahid had confessed their guilt, however, it is nowhere mentioned in the F.I.R. that as to when and after how much time of occurrence, the said confession was made by them. Even the statement of such Jehangir and Shahid had not been recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. nor allegedly they had been shown witnesses in the main challan case. This aspect makes the case of the petitioner as that of further inquiry. The petitioner was arrested on 15-9-2008 and allegedly on 18-9-2008 the cash of Rs.5,000 and finger ring along with watches were recovered. The cash itself does not connect the petitioner with the crime. As far as the finger ring and watches are concerned though there appears to be on record Fard Shanakhat but apparently there appears no proof of ownership of the complainant. The report from the Magistrate with regard to the stage of the case was also called, who had reported that record had been summoned by the revisional Court, which had not been returned. Thus it also appears that there is no probability of the conclusion of the trial in the near future. The petitioner is behind, the bars since 15-9-2008 and no person can be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. Thus looking from whatever angle, the ease of the petitioner definitely requires further inquiry.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the suns of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./N-101/L Bail granted.