ABDUL SAMAND vs The STATE and another

ORDER

' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.75, dated 22-2-2012, under sections 395 and 397 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Mananwala, District Sheikhupura.

2. Tanveer Ahmad is the complainant of the above said case, who has, precisely, alleged in the F.I.R.

That his truck bearing Registration No.LHP-297 loaded with yarn worth Rs.32,50,000 was being driven by Muhammad Khalil with Shehzad alias FM as his helper, towards Mananwala on 21-,2-2012, when it arrived at a distance of about 1 km from the G.T.Road, it was intercepted by two cars, wherefrom six unknown armed men alighted and rendered both of them hostages at gunpoint; they drove away the loaded truck and also abducted the driver and helper in their car. A cell phone of the driver was also snatched by them.

3. The above said truck was booked by the traffic police, the same day being overloaded but it was allowed to continue its journey after issuance of the challan' One Shoaib approached the traffic police on 9-3-2012 for fetching the documents (Registration Book etc.) of the said truck but he was retained by the police and interrogated who disclosed that the occurrence, as contained in F.I.R.

No.75 of 2012 (supra) was committed by his maternal uncle Iftikhar. In the meanwhile Abdul Samad (petitioner) who ran a goods forwarding Adda at Sheikhupura tiled Writ Petition No.11227 of 2012 against the S.H.O. Police Station Mananwala and the DPO Sheikhupura for the recovery of his two employees Dildar Masih and Muhammad Imran as well as the recovery of two vehicles, a car and a jeep which had been taken into custody on suspicion by the said police on 9-3-2012 and 30-4-2012 respectively, wherein a bailiff of this court spotted the above said vehicles parked at Police Station Mananwala (Sheikhupura) but the alleged detenus Dildar Masih and Muhammad Imran could not be recovered by him. This writ petition was finally withdrawn by the petitioner on 17-5-2012.

Interestingly, Abdul Samad (petitioner) was arrested by the police, belonging to the same Police Station on 18-5-2012 under section 54, Cr.P.C., when he stood along with one Ali Raza at Adda Mananwala and sent to judicial lockup for the purpose of test identification parade.

4. It was at this stage, when Tanveer Ahmad (complainant) rendered a supplementary statement before the Investigating Officer of this case whereby he, on the basis of his personal knowledge, nominated Imran alias Bastar, Nasar Abbas, Shabbir, Ghazanfar Abbas, Kali, Asif Hayat and Imran alias Thakar as the accused of this case. Test identification parade of the accused-petitioner was held on 8-6-2012 during the course of which he was correctly picked up by Khalil and Shehzad with the allegation that he drove a car at the time of occurrence.

5. The petitioner led to the recovery of five bags of yarn on 20-6-2012 when he was on physical remand with the police.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that petitioner is neither nominated in the F.I.R. Nor in the supplementary statement of the complainant.

Every probability exists to believe that the above said writ petition filed by him against the S.H.O. Of Police Station Mananwala for the recovery of his employees Dildar Masih and Imran had caused anger to the above-said S.H.O., as he called in question the act of the police for having taken into custody his vehicles, a car and a jeep, on suspicion on 9-3-2012 and 30-4-2012 and a bailiff appointed by this court found both the vehicles parked at the said Police Station. The fury of the S.H.O. In such a situation is understandable. The complainant did not doubt the credentials of the petitioner even at the time of making a supplementary statement on 19-5-2012. The test identification parade took place about 5-1/2 months after the occurrence, the veracity whereof cannot lie truly assessed at this stage which, however, shall be looked into by the trial Court after recording evidence of the parties at trial. The petitioner does not have any criminal history. His implication in the instant case, for the aforesaid reason does not appear aboveboard and his case calls for further probe into his guilt as envisaged by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The investigation stands completed and report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has already been submitted before the trial Court vide case diary dated 26-6-2012 and in such a situation, his further incarceration may be of no consequence to the prosecution case.

7. Therefore, the instant application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2 lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.