AMIR AMAN ULLAH KHAN vs NAIYLA NAWAZ KHAN and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Amir Aman Ullah Khan, in connection with F.I.R. No. 207, registered under Sections 381-A and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 (referred to as Hadd Imlak). The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the prosecution's claim of recovery of the vehicle's registration book from his possession, despite the complainant's initial failure to mention the registration book's presence in the stolen vehicle. The Court held that the recovery of the registration book, which was not mentioned in the initial F.I.R., rendered the prosecution's case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail provisions, and the petitioner's continued detention was unnecessary for investigation purposes. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, emphasizing that the lack of incriminating evidence and the nature of the offence warranted release pending trial.
- Does the recovery of an item not mentioned in the initial F.I.R. make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail if the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and further detention is not required for investigation?
- Can a bail application be granted when the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of stolen property is contested?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J.---This is an application on behalf of petitioner (Amir Aman Ullah Khan) for the grant of bail in connection with case F.I.R. No. 207, dated 16-6-2010, under sections 381-A, 411, P.P.C. Read with section 14, Hadd Imlak, Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad, on the grounds that he has got nothing, to do with the commission of the offence as he is not nominated in the F.I.R. And actually no car had been stolen from Islamabad at the relevant time, there is no incriminating material available against him; his involvement is on account of mala tide as he had refused to give money to the police and, therefore, he was arrested in connection with the present case; it is a case of no evidence; he is in judicial lock-up and no more required for the purpose of investigation. It is further submitted that in F.I.R. There is no mention of existence of Registration Book in the vehicle, therefore, its recovery from the house of the accused is an afterthought story of the prosecution.
2. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel opposed the bail application on the ground that in supplementary statement, the complainant had specifically mentioned the fact that original registration book and her ID Card were lying in its dash-board and that present petitioner during investigation got recovered the original registration book of the stolen car from his house which, prima facie connects him with the commission of offence, he facilitates the thieves by sale and purchase of stolen cars, there is sufficient material against him and the offences are non-bailable.
3. Earlier, bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge Islamabad vide order dated 8-6-2011.
4. Heard and record paused.
5. The brief facts emerge out of the F.I.R., lodged by Naila. Nawaz, are that her car parked near Rahat Bakers had been stolen away between 8-00/9-45 p.m. On 16-6-2010. During investigation of the case, accused was arrested and on his pointation, registration book of the stolen vehicle was recovered from his house.
6. It is admitted fact of the case that initially the complainant had not mentioned the fact of presence of original registration book in the car while he had specifically mentioned about her MC in the car, therefore, this recovery makes the case as one of further inquiry.
7. So far as involvement of the present petitioner in other similar cases are concerned, there is no such disclosure memo on record and against his involvement requires further probe into the matter and his continued detention is not required for any purpose of investigation. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
8. In view above, the instant petition is allowed and in consequence thereof petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 3 lac with two sureties of 1-1/2 lac each and PR bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.