TAHIR ISLAM vs THE STATE

ORDER

' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Tahir Islam son of Noor Muhammad, petitioner, who is accused in case F..I.R.

No,244 of 2008, dated 12-6-2008, registered with Police Station Gogera, District Okara, for offences under sections 392, 411, P.P.C. By filing this petition seeks post-arrest bail.

2. The allegation in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Hameed Khan son of Manzoor Hussain, complainant, was that four persons, the physical and facial descriptions of whom have been mentioned in the F.I.R., while variously armed first blocked the road between the area of Natwana Chowk and Ahata Bhawan Shah by putting stones and hay, then they forcibly entered into a wagon and commandeered it to a deserted place near the said Natwana Chowk, where cellular phones and cash amount from the passengers had been snatched.

3. The petitioner was arrested on 23-6-2008 and is in custody ever since. His application for post- arrest bail had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, vide order, dated 16-10-2008. Hence this petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Deputy Prosecutor- General for the State and have perused the record brought by Muhammad Javaid A.S.-I., Police Station Gogera District Okara.

5. It has been observed that initially the name of the petitioner along with his co-accused did not figure on the F.I.R. And that it had surfaced for the first time in the supplementary statement- made by the complainant on 17-6-2008 i.e. Five days after the occurrence, wherein he had stated that he had found out that Tahir Islam petitioner, Liaquat Ali son of Hamid, Tariq son of Ameen and Khalid Farooq son of Murtaza were the culprits. As a result of this supplementary statement the petitioner and the rest of the three named accused had also been arrested. The allegation against the petitioner and his co-accused named in the supplementary statement is absolutely identical. It is on record that during the course of hearing of the bail application of Tariq and Liaquat, the complainant had got his statement recorded before the learned Magistrate who was seized of the bail application wherein he had resiled from his earlier stance taken in the supplementary statement and had stated that he had named Tariq and Liaquat accused on the basis of some misunderstanding and on the asking of some one else; that now he had satisfied himself about the innocence of Tariq and Liaquat accused. It is on record that recovery of some cash amount had not only been effected from the petitioner but also from the said Liaquat and Tariq accused. It appears that the complainant has arrogated to himself the authority to first involve some persons in a serious criminal case and thereafter declare them innocent saying that he had entangled them on account of some misunderstanding. This function is the exclusive domain of the investigating agency and cannot be assigned or delegated to the complainant. Even otherwise the prevaricating stance of the complainant is a poor reflection on his trustworthiness. In this backdrop, the possibility that the present petitioner had also been involved on the basis of some misunderstanding or on the asking of somebody cannot be ruled out. This circumstance by itself is sufficient to render the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judi.) of this Court.