MUHAMMAD TANVEER vs THE STATE

ORDER

' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Through this single order, I intend to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,7178/B of 2008 and Criminal Miscellaneous No,7867/B of 2008 because both these petitions are stemming from one and the same F.I.R. Bearing No,445 of 2006, dated 25-12-2006, registered at Police Station City Narowal, in respect of an offence under section 395, P.P.C.

2. In support of these applications, learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the F.I.R.

Was lodged against unknown dacoits; that both the petitioners herein were involved in this case subsequently on the basis of a supplementary statement/application of the complainant dated 1- 3-2007; that though, the case was lodged against unknown outlaws, yet after the arrest of the petitioners, no identification parade was held to connect them with the alleged offence; that the petitioners are in throes of incarceration since 26-3-2007; that during the investigation, none of the looted items was recovered from the possession of the petitioners and that the case of the petitioners required further inquiry.

3. Conversely, learned D.P.-G. Has opposed both the bail applications, contending that the petitioners have committed a serious offence, which falls within the prohibitory clause and that the complainant had/has no to falsely implicate the petitioners in this case.

4. I have given an ardent hearing to the respective learned counsel for both the parties. I have found out that initially a case was registered against 18/19 unknown dacoits. However, during the investigation, 18 persons were nominated as perpetrators of the offence in question on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded on 1-3-2007. A perusal of the said supplementary statement, which was recorded after a delay of more than two months of lodging the F.I.R., reveals that no concrete basis for linking the petitioners with the alleged crime, was given by the complainant, rather, it was claimed therein that through some (undisclosed) source, the complainant had discovered that the offence in question was, committed by all the accused nominated in the supplementary statement. Be that as it may, since the F.I.R. Had been lodged against unknown persons, the Investigating Officer was duty bound to arrange for an identification parade, but admittedly the Investigating Officer failed to do so. Furthermore, none of the looted items/material could be recovered from the possession of the petitioner during the investigation. The recovery of cell phones, tentatively speaking, does not connect the petitioners with the alleged crime, inasmuch as, the model number of the cell phone, recovered from one of the petitioners did not tally with that of looted mobile phones as mentioned in the F.I.R. Similarly, the cell phone recovered from the other petitioner, being a common article prima facie cannot connect the petitioner with the alleged crime.

5. Be that as it may, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the case of the petitioners requires further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., to say the least. In addition to this, it is interesting enough to see that even the charge has not been framed against the petitioners, as yet, according to unrebutted claim of the learned counsel for the petitioners, who have been suffering the toils of incarceration since 26-3-2007. Early conclusion of the trial is a valuable right of every accused, but the same has been denied to the petitioners.

6. For all that has been observed above, I am inclined to grant concession of post-arrest bail to both the petitioners subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (rupees two hundred thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

7. Before parting with this order, I would like to observe that like this case, and in so many other cases, as well this. Court has noticed that the accused of serious offences get the premium of incompetency or negligence of the Investigating Officers, and due to the said lapses on the part of the Investigating Officers, accused involved in serious offences get their acquittal from the courts of law. The said fact has made the public lose its confidence to a great extent. And, as the courts are bound to decide the cases on merits on the basis of evidence collected by the investigating agencies, therefore, it becomes difficult for the courts to convict the accused due to insufficiency of the evidence. This shakes the confide e of the public in courts proceedings as well without any fault on t it part. In this case, public property was looted but the Investigating Officer failed to perform his duties efficiently, for the reasons best known to him. Due to lack of exhibition of proper/skills of investigation and lack of proper interest by the Investigating Officer the accused have got benefit in the matter of bail and there is every likelihood that they will get the same benefit at the time of the trial as well. Therefore, office is directed to send to copy of this order to S.P. (Investigation), Narowal, D.P.O. Narowal and Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, for taking necessary action against the delinquent Police Officers in accordance with law. They are further directed to educate the Investigating Officers/Sleuth, and to ensure that the Investigating Officers perform their duties carefully, efficiently, diligently and vigorously, in future.