Shahbaz alias Raju vs State and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 402/2019 registered under Sections 392, 397, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ghallah Mandi, District Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when he was not named in the initial crime report, was implicated belatedly through a supplementary statement without a stated source, and the sole recovery against him was a cash amount. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that in the absence of sufficient incriminating material connecting the petitioner to the crime, delayed supplementary implication and the pendency of other criminal cases do not justify withholding bail. The key principle laid down is that delayed implication without a disclosed source and minor recoveries, coupled with a lack of direct incriminating evidence, entitle an accused to further inquiry under post-arrest bail considerations.
- Whether an accused not named in the initial crime report is entitled to post-arrest bail when implicated through a belated supplementary statement without a disclosed source?
- Can the pendension of other criminal cases of a like nature be used as a sole hurdle to withhold the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Does the mere recovery of a nominal cash amount from an accused constitute sufficient incriminating material to deny post-arrest bail in a robbery case?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Shahbaz alias Raju (petitioner) seeks bail after arrest in cage FIR No. 402/2019, dated 10.06.2019 registered for offences under Sections 392, 397, 41 1, PPC at Police Station Ghallah Mandi, District Sahiwal.
2. Precisely stated the case of prosecution as unfolded from the crime report is to the effect that on 07.06.2019 at about 2:15 p.m. Zubair Akram (complainant) along with his wife was on way back to his house after having breakfast at Fazal Haq Dera; that he was intercepted by four persons boarding on two motorcycles and having muffled faces, who deprived the complain ant party from certain valuables including wallet, two mobile phones and ornaments etc.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. It is discernible from the perusal of record that the case in hand was registered for an incident which occurred on 07.06.2019, during which the complainant and his wife were deprived from certain valuables, the detail of which is mentioned in the First Information Repo rt. The accusation of committing the crime was pointed towards four unknown persons who had muffled their faces. Needless to mention here that the petitioner is neither named in the crime report nor in the statements of witnesses recorded on the very first day of the occurrence.
5. In the wake of facts mentioned above, it is noticed that petitioner was implicated in the case through supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 24.10.2019, without mentioning any specific source from which he derived that petitioner was involved in the occurrence. Though an amount of Rs. 30,000/- has been recovered from the petitioner , however , on this score alone the petitioner cannot be held disentitled from the concession of post arrest bail. Since sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime is not available on record, hence, registration of 11 other cases of alike nature cannot be used as a hurdle in withholding the concession of bail.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. While parting with this order , it is also considered appropriate to mention here that the investigation of the case is not found to be up to the mark. It is noticed that no serious effort was made to trace the snatched mobile phones by using their IMEI number . Likewise, though recovery of cash is effected from the petitioner and his co-accused, however , no step was taken so as to find out the place and person to whom the gold ornaments were sold by the accused persons. It is expected that District Police Officer concerned will take appropriate measure to probe these issues and if some fresh incriminating material will be collected against the petitioner , application for cancellation of instant bail will be filed before this Court.