SAADI AHMAD vs THE STATE And Others

ORDER MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Saadi Ahmad petitioner by way of instant petition has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. 414, dated 8-10-2009, under sections 392, 395 and 412, P.P.C.

Registered at Police Station Warburton, District Nankana Sahib.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that case against the petitioner is totally fake and fabricated; that there is an inordinate delay of two months in lodging of initial F.I.R. And even in that F.I.R. Petitioner has not been nominated rather he was subsequently introduced through a supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 22-10-2009 without disclosing any source of his information about culpability of the petitioner; that recovery of mobile phone shown against the petitioner is a fabrication and is of no avail to the prosecution because the mobile phone allegedly recovered at the instance of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R.; that unspecified cash of Rs.10,000 is also not a valid evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of offence. Further contends that as the petitioner is previous non-convict and non-record holder, therefore, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is a matter of further inquiry and that the petitioner is behind the bars since 4-12-2009 without any substantive progress in the trial.

3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contesting this bail application contends that the allegation against the petitioner is very heinous in nature and falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; that there is no mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or police to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case; that recovery of mobile phone and cash of Rs.10,000 is sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime, further more, he remained fugitive from law for a considerable period that attitude of the petitioner disentitles him for the concession of bail.

However, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General after consulting the police record remained unable to point out any other criminal case registered against the petitioner.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Admittedly, there is delay of two months in lodging the initial F.I.R. Without any explanation in which petitioner was not nominated rather he was introduced through a supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 22-10-2009 without disclosing any source of information regarding culpability of the petitioner. Prima facie, recovery of mobile phone shown against the petitioner is doubtful because the brand of mobile phone allegedly recovered at the instance of the petitioner is different than mentioned in the F.I.R. Mere recovery of unspecified cash of Rs.10,000 is not enough to keep the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. Evidentiary value of these recoveries can only be determined after recording of some evidence by the learned trial Court. Identification Parade conducted on 19-12-2009 has least significance because the complainant has nominated the accused with all their details on 22-10-2009 much prior to the identification parade. Petitioner is behind the bars since 4-12-2009 without any substantive progress in the trial and his further detention in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose.

6. In this view of the matter, case against the petitioner falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And is prima-facie one of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

7. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.