Dacoity

Allegations against the applicant/ accused was that he committed dacoity of Rs. 70,000 and theft of mobile phones from the friends of the complainant on gun point

Record revealed that the accused/applicant had been in police custody in a different FIR, when the two witnesses/victims, while visiting that Police Station (a totally different Police Station from the one where the FIR of present occurrence was registered) identified the accused on 04.08.2024 and nominated him for the first time as per the S.161, Cr.P.C statements

Record showed that the accused/applicant was identified by a different victim in the identification parade from the two persons (complainant and another victim) who identified the same accused/applicant in police custody at the police station, a few days earlier

When the identification parade was conducted after the complainant nominated the petitioner, then, in these circumstances, the sanctity of the test identification parade, prima facie, opened the door to further inquiry

Police papers showed that the counsel for the complainant/eye-witnesses/victims was also present at the time of the identification parade and recorded his objections, when the protocol in such cases was that he should not have been present; it appeared that the protocol was not followed

Bottom line was that, the mode and manner of the identification parade did not inspire confidence, particularly when the FIR was lodged against unknown accused, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, triggered a need for further inquiry and merited consideration as one of the points for the concession of bail to the accused/applicant

Alleged incident took place on 27.07.2024, but it took the complainant/eye-witness/victim, who also alleged that the crime involved five accused, seven (7) days before one of the five victims of the crime registered FIR, on 03.08.2024

No explanation was provided for the delay in filing the FIR

Out of the five eye-witnesses, only one stepped forward as the complainant to lodge the criminal complaint

Furthermore, as per the timing of filing the FIR, the said FIR was registered at Police Station, "KAN", on 03.08.2024, when the accused/applicant was already in police custody in another Police Station in connection with another FIR at the time

Thereafter, on the very next day, two of the five witnesses also proceeded to other Police Station to identify the accused, not at Police Station "KAN" but at other Police Station, where the accused/applicant was being held in police custody

All these events, including the timeline of how the accused was identified and the delay in filing the FIR required further inquiry

Nothing had been recovered from the applicant/accused

Yet, the prosecution had submitted in the lower forum, and once again before this Court, that the accused/applicant was involved in crimes of a similar nature and was charged in several FIRs

Prosecution's submission was not persuasive

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Applicant was nominated in the FIR along with co-accused and certain robbed articles were allegedly shown to have been recovered by the police from him at the time of his arrest

However, on same footings co-accused, who too was arrested by the police on 14.08.2023 and certain robbed articles were also recovered from his possession, had been granted post arrest bail on 15.08.2024

Other co-accused persons had also been granted extra-ordinary relief in shape of pre-arrest bail by the Court on 12.08.2024 yet the request so made by present applicant had been turned down for reasons best known to the Presiding Officer

Since some of the co-accused had been extended grace of pre-arrest bail and one had been released on post arrest bail, the case of present applicant was not only at par with them rather was on better footings than that of co-accused who had been granted bail by the Court below

When complainant who was victim of incident had no objection and co-accused had been granted bail, case of applicant was purely covered by subsection (2) to S.497, Cr.P.C

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

First Information Report had been lodged after a delay of about four months of the occurrence and the complainant had failed to explain the delay in lodging of FIR

Moreover, there was a transaction of car between the petitioner/complainant and the respondents/accused as evident from sale deed dated 24.04.2024 whereby the complainant had sold out Toyota Corolla which had been allegedly forcibly snatched by the respondent/accused from the complainant

Hence, controversy between the parties seemed to be of civil nature and required further inquiry into the guilt of the respondents/accused under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Perusal of record revealed that the respondent No.2/accused had also lodged FIR against brother of complainant under S.489-F, P.P.C., which created serious doubt regarding involvement of the respondents/accused in the case

Moreover, when the Court of competent jurisdiction had granted bail to the accused, then strong grounds were required for its cancellation

For cancellation of bail, the Court had to see whether the accused after release on bail was creating hindrance for complainant party, tampering with the prosecution evidence or misusing the concession of bail

Perusal of record depicted that all the said ingredients required for cancellation of bail were lacking in the instant case

Petition filed under S.497(5) Cr.P.C being bereft of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

FIR stated that three sub-machine guns and one pistol, gold ornaments and mobile phones were stolen when the dacoity was committed

In view of the fact that the description of the petitioner (accused) was not mentioned in the FIR, it brought into question the identification parade

None of the stolen goods were recovered from the petitioner which made the present case one of further inquiry

Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, and petitioner was granted bail.

Prosecution case was that the petitioner/accused, along with co-accused duly armed with weapons entered into the house (house-in-question) and looted away valuable articles

Application under S. 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, filed by the petitioner/accused was declined by the Trial Court; he assailed said dismissal order before the High Court

Complainant asserted himself as a tenant at house-in-question(place of alleged occurrence) on behalf of a person with whom the petitioner/accused had civil/criminal litigations since long while he (accused) claimed himself to be the owner of house-in-question

Validity

Allegation(s) had been that of house-trespass and that of stealing away household articles etc.

Normally such allegations would require due trial but if the alleged accused, on the other hand, had been involved in litigation in respect of same premises (house-in-question) since purchase, then such case would be an exception because no offence of trespass could be made against occupant, claimed purchaser or tenant, even if such claim was under litigation; as such alleged occurrence could not constitute an act of trespass on the part of the accused

Even the complainant himself while recording his evidence adduced/suggested that accused persons had committed the occurrence directing the co-accused to vacate their house

Record revealed that as independent witnesses (Chowkidar etc.) had not supported the complainant's version so the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C, 1898, was submitted in A-Class (discharge of nominated accused)

Though the Court of Magistrate was competent to take cognizance on even a negative report (under S. 173, Cr.P.C, 1898), but said act never absolved the Court, while deciding an application under S. 249-A or 265-K of Cr.P.C, 1898, from examining the undeniable or undisputed documents/facts like one(s) relating to previous civil as well as criminal litigation amongst the parties

Court was also to weigh the possibility that prosecution would not be able to prove charge for any offence against the petitioner/accused even if the trial would have been allowed to continue

Present case was one of extraordinary circumstances, hence High Court quashed the proceedings of Trial Court against the petitioner/accused

Petition moved by the petitioner/accused under S. 561-A of the Cr.P.C, 1898, was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the petitioner and three other co-accused persons was that they, being armed with pistols, committed theft of three (03) coils from a transformer valuing Rs. 30,000/= and electric wires valuing Rs. 10,000/= from the Government tubewell

Initially, the FIR was registered under S. 382 of the Penal Code, 1860, however, later S. 395 was added during the submission of Challan

Contention of the petitioner/accused was that he was falsely involved in the case because his brother had moved application against the Police Officials

Validity

Record revealed that though the complainant made allegation specifically in the FIR against the accused persons, however, during the investigation the Investigating Officer (I.O.) did not collect any evidence to substantiate the accused's involvement in the offence under S. 395 of the Penal Code, 1860, therefore, the addition of said section solely based on the opinion of the Deputy Public Prosecutor (D.P.P) was a matter that required further inquiry

Accused had alleged the malice against the Police and concerns about the Police implicating his family in false cases were expressed in the application moved by his brother just three days before the accused's involvement in the present case as they had refused to pay the monthly bribes to the Police

Said allegations raised sufficient doubts regarding accused's commission of the offence

Prosecution had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and even at bail stage, the benefit of doubt could be extended to the accused

Bail was allowed to the petitioner, in circumstances.

Case, after investigation, was recommended for its disposal under class 'C' and for releasing the accused under S. 169, Cr.P.C., as was reflected from the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., initially submitted by Investigating Officer

Case of the accused was at par with the case of co-accused persons, who were already on bail

Accused and the complainant were stated to be residing in the same village and, previous hostility between the parties over business transaction was alleged

Statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., of the prosecution witnessess, who were sons of complainant, were recorded after one day of arrest of the accused and there was no explanation for such delay

Case of the accused fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C., which entitled him for grant of concession of bail

Bail application of the accused was allowed, in circumstances.

In cases of women as mentioned in the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C, irrespective of the category of the offence, bail was to be granted as a rule and refused as an exception

Persons involved in the commission of offences of robbery or dacoity were usually professional criminals and there was a likelihood that they would repeat the offence if enlarged on bail, but the case of the present female-accused was distinguishable as she was working as a maid in the house of the complainant as per his own version, therefore, she did not appear to be a professional robber or dacoit and the Court did not find likelihood of her repeating the offence if released on bail

Petition for leave to appeal was converted onto appeal and allowed, and accused was admitted to post-arrest bail.

Complainant had not stated that a ladder was taken away by the culprits at the time of the incident, but the Investigating Officer had allegedly recovered some ladder on the pointation of one of the accused persons and it was not even produced before the court as the case property

Investigating Officer had deposed that one of the accused persons had got recovered the stolen articles whereas prosecution witness in his examination-in-chief had deposed that the Station House Officer (SHO) had called him and others on phone to come to the police station as the police had recovered some stolen articles

Complainant had identified the accused persons in a solar light but in the mashirnama of inspection of place of occurrence availability of solar light was not mentioned

Complainant had admitted that he had a dispute with the accused persons over harap and money allegedly borrowed by one of them

Material and glaring contradictions, dishonest and deliberate improvements and admissions adverse to the prosecution case made by prosecution witnesses during the trial had rendered the prosecution case doubtful

Trial court had rightly acquitted the accused persons by extending benefit of doubt which did not call for any interference

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Merely filing affidavit of 'no objection for grant of bail' by the complainant would not entitle the accused for grant of bail

Affidavit submitted by complainant was of no consequence during bail stage and could not be given status of evidence, as the affidavit submitted by him was not a statement either under S. 161 or l64, Cr.P.C.

Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was booked as preparator for commission of an offence under S. 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979

FIR was delayed for which there was no explanation, whatsoever

Initially the complainant had not proposed to visit the police station rather had approached Nek Mards of the area and subsequently, he had filed application before Justice of Peace

No evidence was available to prove the fact that the complainant had approached the Nek Mards and he was advised not to lodge the FIR

In the absence of such evidence the inference could not be ruled out that the delayed FIR was lodged after consultation and deliberation just to concoct and fabricate a story and rope males and females in the case

Prosecution witnesses had contradicted each other on material particulars

Evidence on record was misread, misconstrued, mis-constructed and the facts were mis-appreciated which had resulted in grave miscarriage of justice

Trial Court had acquitted one co-accused and the other was acquitted by the Federal Shariat Court

In such view of the matter, the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court were not sustainable as the law of the land was falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

Appeal against conviction was accepted and the accused was acquitted of the charge.

Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused, six in number entered into the house of complainant and looted five crore rupees cash, jewellery amounting to fifty/sixty lakhs

Record showed that the complainant submitted application for the registration of FIR on 11.04.2017

Station House Officer concerned instead of registering FIR started inquiry under S. 157(2), Cr.P.C. and finally on 01.05.2017 recommended for FIR

Complainant by submitting application, fulfilled the responsibility on his part

Mere delay in lodging FIR was not sufficient to believe or disbelieve the contents of FIR

Guilt or innocence would require evidence

Concept of FIR was to set criminal law into motion

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused, six in number, entered into the house of complainant and looted five crore rupees cash, jewellery amounting to fifty/sixty lakhs

Record transpired that the custody of accused was taken by the police on 23.06.2017, then the identification parade was conducted

Delay of identification per se was not itself sufficient to discard the testimony

Identification parade was not substantive piece of evidence

Identification parade could only corroborate the statement of the witness

Circumstances established that the conviction so recorded by the trial court was proper and well reasoned

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused, six in number, entered into the house of complainant and looted five crore rupees cash, jewellery amounting to fifty/sixty lakhs

Record showed that the custody of accused was taken who was already in custody of another case

During investigation, the accused made disclosure and on his pointation, the Investigating Officer got recovered an amount of Rs. 28,50,000/-, one 9-MM pistol with live cartridges, one gold ring

Vehicle and commando uniform was also taken into possession from the house of the accused

Accused had given details of dacoity, his companions, purchase of body building articles, purchase of vehicle and same were recovered on his pointation

Record showed that the complainant, prima facie, had no motive to falsely involve the accused

Evidence tendered by prosecution qualified the term confidence inspiring to the extent of accused

Hence in absence of any possibility of false involvement such evidence was rightly believed by the Trial Court

Circumstances established that the conviction so recorded by the Trial Court was proper and well reasoned

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Application for identification parade which was essential was dismissed on the ground that the Investigating Officer had not taken precautionary measures for hiding the identity of the accused and had brought the accused for identification parade with open face

Accused had made out a case for further inquiry within the meaning of sub-section (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that when the train stopped for some reason, the accused persons entered in the train and snatched cash, mobile phones, etc from the complainants

Investigating Officer had obtained call data record of the snatched mobile phones which showed that the SIMs registered in the name of certain accused persons were used in the said phones

Other accused persons were found to be in possession of the snatched mobile phones

Accused persons had also produced the robbed cash

Accused persons did not deny the registration of SIMs in their names

Complainants were not on inimical terms with the accused persons

Sufficient material was available on record to connect the accused persons with the commission of alleged offences

Delay in lodging FIRs was plausibly explained by the complainants

Delay, even otherwise, was not sufficient to grant bail unless the same was supported by other circumstances

Applications for grant of bail were dismissed.

Allegations against the applicant was that on 18.09.2019 at about 01:45 a.m., he came at the place of incident along with his companions, who were seven in number, on three motorcycles with weapons and they by dint of weapons snatched the valuable articles/ belongings from the complainant and his friends

Record showed that incident took place on 18.09.2019, and on same day the matter was reported by the complainant, who appeared to have no inimical terms with the applicant, alleging therein that applicant came there along with his companions and they by the dint of weapons, snatched/looted the personal belonging/articles, details mentioned in FIR, from them

Accused were trying to escape from the spot, they were apprehended and arrested by the police and the looted articles were recovered from their possession

Complainant and witnesses, who were the victims in the case, in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., had fully supported the case and implicated the present applicant in the commission of offence, which appeared to be serious and heinous in nature

Applicant was also involved in a case under S.392/34, P.P.C.

Said aspect had not been controverted by the applicant

Material available against the applicant, prima facie, showed his involvement in the case

Bail application was dismissed accordingly.

Prosecution witness in his cross-examination had deposed that there were 50/60 houses situated in the colony but no one was attracted on the cries of complainant

Prosecution had given up a witness for undisclosed reasons

Enmity between the complainant and one of the accused was admitted over registration of criminal case against complainant

Trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that reasonable doubt had been created in the prosecution case and its benefit was rightly extended to the accused persons

Trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused persons

Appeal against acquittal being devoid of merits, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complainant in his FIR had disclosed that the accused persons had taken away hard cash and five packets of cigarettes whereas in his examination-in-chief he had mentioned other articles

Complainant in his examination-in-chief had deposed that the Soobedar had arrived on the spot and had collected empties but he had not disclosed the source of calling the Soobedar

Eye-witness of the incident named in the FIR, was not examined by the prosecution and in such eventuality it could be inferred that had the said person been examined he would not have supported the case of prosecution

Complainant had admitted that one of the accused persons used to purchase items from his shop and used to pay for them but the prosecution witness stated that the said person used to take items from the shop but he had never paid for them

Prosecution witnesses had admitted that 40/50 houses were situated near the place of incident but the prosecution did not cite any independent witness to strengthen its case

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant alleged that two main accused (pretending themselves to be Police officials) enquired about the woman (wife of the complainant) and then six other accused persons, including petitioners (three in number) appeared and looted the complainant party

Petitioners (students/teenagers) contended that they were persuaded by the main accused to go to sea for enjoying the oceanic view and merrymaking

Record revealed that recovery was not effected from the petitioners and belongings of the complainant were recovered from the main culprits

Wife of the complainant in her statement disclosed that only two persons came at the scene of the offence, who talked to her husband while she was sitting in the park at that time

From the statement of the wife of the complainant, it appeared that only two persons had taken part in the offence so contention raised by the petitioners could not be disregarded in peculiar circumstance of the present case

Nothing was recovered from the petitioners and the wife of the complainant had involved only two persons in the alleged incident, therefore, the case of the petitioners called for further inquiry

Petitioners were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Accused and his five accomplices duly armed with weapons, riding on two motorcycles, allegedly snatched away wallet containing cash and a mobile phone from complainant on show of weapons

Police on patrolling arrived at the place of incident and apprehended three of the culprits including the accused shortly after the incident

Police recovered six mobile phones and three unlicensed crime weapons with ammunition from their possession

Prosecution witnesses in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. had implicated the accused

No enmity between accused and complainant was shown

Prima facie sufficient material existed against the accused to connect him with the offence alleged against him falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. which disentitled him to grant of bail

Bail was refused accordingly.

Complainant alleged that accused entered his house by showing weapons and stole away jewelry and other valuable articles

FIR was not registered by police resultantly private complaint was filed regarding which Trial Court took cognizance

Accused filed petition under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR

Perusal of FIR and record disclosed that complainant had levelled series of false allegations against accused due to enmity

Complainant party and its witnesses in their depositions failed to corroborate each other

Witnesses who were said to have opened the doors of the house after the alleged dacoity were not residents of same locality

Complainant instead of approaching the Justice of Peace filed private complaint which showed his mala fide

Complainant party, in circumstances, did not approach the court with clean hands

FIR was ordered to be quashed.

Complainant had not examined any person from his family said to be present at the time of incident to support allegations of robbery in his house committed by accused persons

FIR was lodged after more than one month of the incident, and said delay was not satisfactorily explained by the complainant

False implication of accused persons, under the circumstances, could not be ruled out

No eye-witness of the incident was available, except the complainant himself

No incriminating article, including the case property was recovered from accused persons, during investigation, to establish their connection with the commission of offence

Conviction, could be awarded to an accused, only after reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence, containing no loopholes or discrepancy casting some cloud over the veracity of prosecution story brought on record

Question of liberty of a person was to be dealt with very cautiously by the court

Unless some cogent, best and natural evidence, was produced against accused fully establishing his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, he should not be sent behind the bars

Prosecution had failed to bring on record the evidence of that quality and degree, which would justify maintaining conviction and sentence against accused persons

Interference in the findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court against accused persons, was necessary, and would serve the ends of justice

Allowing appeal, conviction and sentence of accused were set aside, they were ordered to be released, in circumstances.

Accused were not known previously to the complainant and occurrence had taken place during night hours, identification parade of accused, therefore, was essential

Recovery controverted the allegations in FIR

Charge had not been framed during period of nine months of arrest

No possibility existed to award maximum sentence to accused for the alleged offence

Co-accused was admitted to bail by the same court

Confession of accused before investigating officer had no value in the eye of law

Accused had succeeded to make out a case of further inquiry

Bail was granted accordingly.

Said witness, had neither any inimical term with accused; nor accused had alleged that he had any inimical term with the witness; which prima facie had shown involvement of accused in the case, which appeared to be serious, heinous in nature and so also against the society

Version of the complainant, had been fully supported by the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.

Robbed property was cash amount, which would easily be disposed of immediately

Mere non-recovery of the robbed amount, was no ground for grant of bail

Sufficient material was available on record to connect accused with the commission of the alleged offence

Delay in lodging of FIR, had been explained

No proof had been brought on record by accused that FIR had been delayed and lodged after due deliberation and consultation to involve accused in the case

Case of accused not calling for further inquiry, bail application of accused was dismissed having no merits.

Contention of prosecution was that on receipt of spy information qua presence of some persons for purpose of dacoity/snatching money from passers-by, Police Official rushed to the place and apprehended accused and his companion and on search of accused, a live hand grenade was recovered from his possession

Held, that S.399, P.P.C., dealt with preparation for committing dacoity while Ss.400 & 401, P.P.C., dealt with persons belonging to a gang of dacoits and thieves and not an iota of evidence was on record to show previous involvement of accused in any case of dacoity or theft, therefore, applicability of Ss.399, 400 & 401, P.P.C., was yet to be determined during trial

Punishment of S.15 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013 did not fall within restrictive limb of S.497, Cr.P.C., while in absence of any previous history of accused in any case of terrorism or other anti-state activities, it was yet to be proved by prosecution that hand grenade in possession of accused was for some subversive purpose

Accused was entitled to concession of bail by furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.3,00,000, accordingly.

Mere recovery of such small amount from a person, would not per se hold him to be linked with the commission of the offence; as long as the same was not proved to be the stolen cash amount from the house of the complainant

Local Police spurred into action against accused, at the instance of the complainant through his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.

Complainant, present in the court along with his duly sworn affidavit, stated to have satisfied himself about the innocence of accused and expressed his "no objection" over his release on bail

Taking a tentative assessment of the available record, coupled with the sworn affidavit of the complainant, case of accused called for further probe into the matter, which entitled him to bail

Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.

Charge against the accused had to be framed within reasonable period by the Trial Court, but the same had taken more than seven months

Delay in conclusion of trial was not attributed to the accused

No ground was available with the prosecution to decline bail to the accused on the statutory ground

Bail application was, therefore, allowed accordingly.

Non-holding of identification parade after the arrest of accused had brought the case within the purview of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Co-accused having identical role had already been granted bail by the Trial Court

Present accused was entitled to the same treatment on the rule of consistency

Case of the accused required further probe to the effect whether alleged recovery had been affected from the possession of accused or otherwise

Accused was no more required for investigation

Nothing was on record with regard to previous involvement of accused in such like cases

Bail was granted subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Two lac) in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

Bail application was accepted accordingly.

Accused was not nominated in F.I.R. and was arraigned on the strength of supplementary statement recorded by complainant wherein he did not disclose source of information regarding involvement of accused in alleged occurrence-Validity-Accused had been behind the bars for the past more than two months without any progress in trial

Accused was not subjected to any test identification parade though in such like cases accused were not known to victims who were often implicated in cases of dacoity through supplementary statement by victims afterwards having some knowledge and information from reliable sources and through collection of evidence at their own or on asking of police who in order to make case convenient for themselves

Case against accused fell within the domain of further inquiry and reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused did not commit alleged offence

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Evidence procured through modern device like CCTV was made admissible under Art. 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, but at bail stage tentative assessment of entire evidence was to be made by court

Evidence of CCTV would be taken into consideration by Trial Court in accordance with law

Name of accused and his description was not mentioned in FIR as well as in statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. of prosecution witness

Reasonable grounds, apparently existed to believe that accused was not guilty of offence with which he was charged

Bail could not be refused on the ground of seriousness of offence

After arrest of accused no identification parade was held through eyewitnesses

Prima facie a case against accused required further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Station House Officer, on registration of case against certain persons, allegedly had detained petitioner's two sons, illegally and without any lawful justification

Petitioner moved application under S.491, Cr.P.C. in the Trial Court

Alleged detenus were recovered by the bailiff and were produced before the Trial Court/Sessions Judge

Trial Court ordered to set detenus at liberty, subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs. One lac with one surety each

Counsel for the petitioner/father of the detenus, had challenged said order of the Trial Court to the extent of furnishing surety bonds

Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that petition under S.491, Cr.P.C. had never been converted into bail by Trial Court and that Trial Court could only release the detenus after verification that the detention of the detenus was illegal

Validity

High Court which had granted powers of S.491, Cr.P.C., to the Sessions Judges under S.491(1-A), Cr.P.C., had framed rules for exercise of such powers

Rule 3 of part F, Ch. 4, Vol. V of High (Lahore) Rules and Orders provided that on production of detenue, the court had powers to make such order as in the circumstances of the case could seem to be proper

In the present case, due to difference of parentage of the detenus, Sessions Judge granted time to Police to verify the guilt of both detenus, and in the meantime, the detenus were set at liberty, subject to furnishing security

Said security was obtained only for the production of the detenus in the court in future

Held, Trial Court, had ample power/jurisdiction to pass such an order under the Rules

In absence of any illegality in the impugned order, same was upheld and Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prima facie no material was available to show that accused caused any hurt or wrongfully restrained the complainant for fear of instant death

Mens rea and actus reus for the offence and recovery of stolen trailer required proof during course of trial

Fact that no identification test was conducted and accused was found in police lockup stretched benefit of doubt in favour of accused

Offence alleged fell within the purview of further inquiry as the ingredients to attract S. 395, P.P.C required proof which was to be ascertained through conscious steps and not accidently as common unity of design to commit the offence

Accused was granted bail in circumstances.

Accused along with his co-accused was alleged to have snatched cash, mobile sets and a vehicle from the complainant party

F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of eight days without any plausible explanation

Regarding delay in lodging F.I.R. complainant merely stated that he informed a nekmard about the incident, who then approached the accused persons but complainant was kept on false hopes, and ultimately complainant lodged an F.I.R.

Factum of deliberations and consultations could not be ruled out in such circumstances

During the course of commission of the alleged offence complainant claimed to have identified two of the culprits through the head-lights of his vehicle, which proved that accused was already known to the complainant, who in such circumstances should have approached the police station immediately after the incident, which was situated at a distance of 5 to 6 kilometers from the place of incident

Where the alleged offence was punishable with maximum as well as minimum quantum of sentence, the court may consider the minimum sentence even at bail stage

Section 395, P.P.C. besides its maximum punishment also provided (minimum) imprisonment of not less than 4 years

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

Complainant, who deposed that he saw accused persons from a distance of 1/2 Kilometer, had admitted that night of incident was dark

Complainant had also admitted that due to darkness said persons could not be identified from a distance of 1/2 Kilometer

Two prosecution witnesses, had absolutely not supported the identity of any accused

All three prosecution witnesses, had disclosed that the place of incident was surrounded by number of houses; and that people of different caste, resided there

Complainant had also admitted that Police gave him the name of one accused person

Complainant had deposed that they raised no cries to attract the persons from neighbourhood, but prosecution witness had deposed that they raised cries for help, but nobody came for their rescue

Incident was not denied, but the identity of the doers, was not established, which had created doubt in the prudent mind

Whenever, direct evidence failed, the corroborative evidence, would be of no legal value

Corroborative evidence, would not carry any weight, and was of no legal consequence

Court, after taking into consideration, all the facts and circumstances of the case, had not only to be satisfied, that the incident had been committed, but it must also be satisfied that it was the accused, who had committed the incident

Prosecution, having failed to establish its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons, were set aside

Accused were acquitted from the charges levelled against them

Accused who were on bail, their bail bonds were cancelled, and sureties were discharged, in circumstances.

Although accused was neither arrested on the spot nor his name appeared in the F.I.R., but subsequently after an encounter with the police he was arrested in another case and the complainant along with prosecution witness identified accused to be the same culprit who had robbed him

Accused voluntarily led the police towards his house and produced the robbed mobile

Mashirnama of recovery of mobile phone was prepared on the spot in the presence of complainant and prosecution witness

No enmity existed between complainant and accused, therefore, question of false implication of accused did not arise

High Court observed that snatching of mobile phones was rapidly growing in the society and people were being deprived of their valuables on gun point, therefore, grant of bail to accused at present stage would amount to encouraging such offences

Bail application of accused was dismissed accordingly.

Such identification parade was held after six months of the alleged incident and after ten days of the arrest of accused

F.I.R. had mentioned that there were other persons in the bank at the time of incident and they had also seen the accused and co-accused persons, but none of them was called for identification test

Identification report contained remarks that one of the witnesses had been shown photographs of accused and co-accused persons, therefore, he was not allowed to participate in the identification test

Such remarks made the sanctity of identification test doubtful

Case was one of further inquiry

Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.

Accused was implicated by one of co-accused, who disclosed his name in his statement before Investigating Officer, which statement was not admissible under Arts.38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and had no sanctity in the eye of law

Complainant had no enmity or reason to implicate accused

If accused was innocent, delay in identification of accused by the complainant was immaterial

Discrepancy with regard to height of accused and his identification by complainant after the lapse of more than 2-1/2 years, had created some doubt in his identity

Case of prosecution against said accused being not free from doubt, his conviction and sentence was set aside, extending him benefit of doubt

Accused was acquitted and was directed to be released, in circumstances.

Such contradictions were natural having come in evidence due to passage of time between the occurrence of the incident and recording of evidence

Prosecution case was supported by the identification of accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate and recovery of robbed articles

Discrepancies and legal defects in identification parade and in recovery of robbed property, in view of direct evidence on allegation of dacoity, carried no weight

Both the eye-witnesses being inmates of house where occurrence had taken place, their presence was natural and undisputed

Accused having remained at the place of occurrence for considerable time, mistake in their identification could not be inferred

Prosecution had succeeded to establish the charge of dacoity against accused persons, without any shadow of doubt

Impugned judgment of the Trial Court was not the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence, and being based upon cogent reasons, required no interference

Conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons was maintained, in circumstances.

Accused and co-accused were alleged to have committed dacoity at complainant's house and robbed gold articles, mobile phone and cash

Name of accused did not transpire in the F.I.R.

No incriminating article had been recovered from the possession of the accused including robbed articles or crime weapon

Investigating officer got permission from the Magistrate to conduct interrogation of accused prior to his arrest

Law did not permit the police to conduct any interrogation in the crime prior to arrest of the accused particularly in cases where there was substantial evidence available against him

In case of any cognizable offence, accused had to be arrested first and subsequently he could be interrogated

Investigation was also silent regarding reasons for seeking permission from Magistrate in order to conduct interrogation and investigation of accused

Identification parade was conducted after 4 days of accused's arrest and 24 days after the date of his first interrogation

Identification parade was conducted without applying due course of law as 18 dummies were arranged for 3 suspects and same was held jointly

Challan against accused had been submitted and he was not required by the police for further investigation

Accused was granted bail in circumstances.

Accused were alleged to have stopped the car of the complainant party and took away money, wrist watch, driving licence and National Identification Card (NIC)

Evidence against accused was recovery of driving licence, NIC and wrist watch from their pocket but it was difficult to believe that one would keep for four months driving licence and NIC in his pocket which have no value for him

Money allegedly taken away by accused had not been recovered and it had not been brought in evidence as to how they disposed of the same, which created doubt and any single benefit of doubt had to go in favour of the accused

Bail application of accused was allowed and they were released on bail.

Allegations against accused and his co-accused were general in nature and no specific role had been assigned to the accused

Recovery of money had been effected from other co-accused persons but accused was not identified by the complainant during the identification parade

Co-accused placed in similar circumstances, had already been granted bail

Mere pendency of criminal cases against the accused did not disentitle him from the grant of bail if he had otherwise made out a case for bail

Accused had made out a case of further inquiry in terms of S.497(2), Cr.P.C

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

When alternate sentence had been provided for an offence then lesser sentence should be considered by the Court in the matter of bail.

Testimony of said three police officials, without any independent or reliable corroborative nature of evidence, would not be safe to make such evidence, a basis for the conviction especially when no reason in that regard was assigned by the prosecution

Available record could not connect accused persons with the recovered stolen articles

Stolen articles of huge amount had been recovered and were identified by the complainant, irrespective of the fact that due process was not adopted in that regard, in the absence of any substantive piece of evidence, same could be foisted on any person without any difficulty by the Police to save the actual culprits

Complainant had even not given the description of the stolen articles and amount at any stage nor he had produced the receipts of the gold ornaments before the Trial Court

Identification of recovered stolen property, was not properly conducted and recovered property was not produced before the court at the trial

Impugned judgment of Trial Court was set aside extending benefit of doubt to all the accused persons

Accused were acquitted of the charge and were released, in circumstances.

Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of two months, but the Court did not conclude the same within the said period

Magistrate who was conducting the trial, personally appeared before High Court and gave assurance that he would conclude the trial within a period of one month, but the trial could not be concluded

Trial Court, in its report had submitted reasons for non-conclusion of the trial, to the effect that due to strikes of the lawyers prosecution evidence could not be undertaken despite availability of prosecution witnesses on some dates and on account of adjournments sought by the counsel for the parties

Accused, in circumstances, could not be held responsible for delay in conclusion of the trial

Accused was behind the bars for the last about two years and five months

Expeditious disposal of a criminal case was right of every accused and no one could be detained for an indefinite period, especially when he was not responsible for the delay in the conclusion of the trial

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Investigating Officer had brought not only C.D of camera, but had also brought as many as 14 photographs taken from C.D and had stated that accused did not appear in any of the photographs

Accused was also not seen in video

F.I.R. did not mention that any one of the culprits stayed outside the gate of the bank; in fact it was clearly stated that five accused persons entered into the bank which clearly had created doubt

Benefit of any doubt must be given to accused even at the bail stage

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Plea raised by accused was that if surety amount was not reduced the purpose of granting bail would be defeated and complainant had no objection to reduction of surety amount

Validity

High Court reduced surety amount from Rs.100,000 to 25,000 as it was discretion of court to keep the circumstances and position of accused in mind while passing order regarding surety amount

Bail order passed earlier was modified to the extent of surety amount

Application was disposed of accordingly.

Application for cancellation of bail after arrest was dismissed by the Trial Court, but on appeal, the High Court granted bail to accused under the impugned order and petitioner/complainant had filed petition before Supreme Court for cancellation of bail

Name of accused was mentioned in the F.I.R. and he was identified by the complainant on head-light of the vehicle

Accused was already known to the complainant

Accused also made firing with his kalashnikov with the result that two persons lost their lives and one became injured

Specific role, in circumstances had been assigned to accused

Case of prosecution had been fully supported by the injured and witnesses in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.

No doubt there was delay in lodging F.I.R., but the complainant had tried to explain such delay

Delay, however, by itself was not sufficient to grant of bail, unless same was supported by other circumstances

Explanation of delay in lodging the F.I. R. furnished by the complainant could be examined by the Trial Court at appropriate stage when the evidence was recorded in the case and the same was also subjected to cross-examination

Peculiar circumstances of the case, required deeper examination of the evidence, which could not be undertaken at bail stage

Reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused was involved in the case

Impugned order of High Court granting bail to accused was set aside

Petition was converted into appeal and was allowed.

Name of accused did not figure in the F.I.R. in any capacity whatsoever and his name had surfaced in the case for the first time through a disclosure allegedly made by co-accused before the Police during his custody in connection with some other criminal case

No test identification parade had been held in the case so as to positively incriminate accused

Nothing had been recovered from the possession of accused during the investigation

Investigation of the case had already been finalized and a challan had been submitted

Physical custody of accused was not required for the purpose of investigation, in circumstances

Case against accused calling for further inquiry into the guilt of accused within the purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.