MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ANWAAR-UL-HAQ, J.-- -Through this 2nd petition Muhammad Ramzan petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.512, dated 9-12-2009, registered at Police Station Warburton, Distkict Nankana Sahib in respect of offences under sections 302, 392, 395, 396 and 412, P.P.C. Earlier petition was dismissed having been withdrawn on 4-4-2011 through Criminal Miscellaneous No.3322-B of 2011.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that case against the petitioner is totally false and the story set up by the prosecution narrated in the F.I.R. is improbable; that petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. rather he has subsequently been introduced in this case through the statement of his accused namely Mudassir Iqbal before the police on 22-12-2009; that test identification parade conducted in this case has no significance because petitioner was shown to the complainant and the eye-witness before the test I.D. parade and he has got recorded serious objections in this regard before the learned Area Magistrate at the time of test I.D. parade; that apart from the statement of recovery witnesses, there is no direct legal evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of the alleged crime; that recovery of weapon of offence from the petitioner is of no avail to the prosecution because that was not used by the petitioner during the occurrence and recovery of two ear-rings shown against the petitioner is a fabrication on the part of the police; that in the circumstances, case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt. Further contends that in this case petitioner is behind the bars since 22-12-2009 and his trial has yet not been concluded without any fault of the petitioner or any other person acting on his behalf, hence, he is otherwise entitled for bail on the statutory ground of delay in trial in view of the amendment in section 497, Cr.P.C. Placed reliance on the case-law PLD 2010 Lahore 156, 2008 PCr.LJ 135, 2003 PCr.LJ 1521, 2006 MLD 235 (Karachi), 2008 MLD 1527; 2005 PCr.LJ 557, 2007 MLD 444, 2000 PCr.LJ 1320 PLD 2002 Karachi 402.
3. Conversely, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposing this bail application contends that it is a day-light occurrence and the complainant on 9-12-2009 i.e. on the same day of occurrence got recorded his supplementary statement before the police wherein he categorically stated that accused Mudassir Iqbal along with three unknown accused, who were present immediately after the occurrence at the spot, are responsible for this occurrence; that during the test I.D. parade two P.Ws. namely Muzammil Shehzad and Muhammad Junaid have properly identified the present petitioner; that there is sufficient incriminating evidence against the petitioner in the shape of statements of Muzammil Shehzad and Muhammad Junaid P.Ws.; that recovery of weapon of offence i.e. pistol .30 bore and recovery of two golden ear-rings have been effected at the instance of the petitioner, that is sufficient to connect him with the commission of the crime; that offences against the petitioner are very heinous in nature and fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and involvement of the petitioner in such heinous offences, does not entitle him for bail. Learned counsel for the complainant placing reliance on the case-law 1998 SCMR 897 1995 SCMR 1087 contends that the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail even on the statutory ground because the complainant and the prosecution witnesses are regularly appearing before the learned trial Court but the petitioner is delaying the trial on one pretext or the other and even his conduct is that he has recently appointed his learned counsel on 12-4-2012.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. 1 have noticed that earlier bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed having been withdrawn after arguing the matter at full length on 4-4-2011 through Criminal Miscellaneous No.3322-B of 2011.
Be that as it may, petitioner has been introduced in this case through supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on the same day of occurrence i.e. 9-12-2009 wherein he has categorically stated that accused Mudassir Iqbal along with three unknown accused, who were present immediately after the occurrence at the spot, are responsible for this occurrence, subsequently, said Mudassir Iqbal in his statement recorded before the police on 22-12-2009 has also specifically involved the present petitioner in this case. Besides the complainant, there are two P.Ws. namely Muzammil Shehzad and Muhammad Junaid, who are fully supporting the prosecution version and even during the test I.D. parade they have properly identified the present petitioner. Recovery of weapon of offence i.e. pistol .30 bore and of two golden ear-rings has been effected at the instance of the petitioner and prima facie, there is sufficient evidence available on the record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences, falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.Code All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner need deeper appreciation of evidence that is not permissible at this stage.
As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is entitled far bail on the statutory ground of delay in trial in view of the amendment in section 497, Cr.P.C, suffice it to observe that attested copy of the order sheet of the learned trial Court attached with the file reflects that on certain dates of hearing i.e. 25-10-2010, 17-1-2011, 8-3-2011, 5-4-2011, 20-4-2011, 8-5-2011, 28-6-2011, 17-7-2011, 21-7-2011, 22-8-2011, 22-9-2011, 19-10-2011, 23-11-2011 and 8-12-2011 prosecution witnesses were present but their statements could not be recorded due to absence of learned defence counsel. Case-law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite distinguishable than the facts and circumstances of this case.
6. In view of all above, placing reliance on the case of Abdur Rashid v. State 1998 SCMR 897 I am of the view that the delay in conclusion of the trial cannot be attributed to the prosecution and the same is on the part of the defence and I an not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and this bail petition being devoid of any force is, therefore, dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial against the petitioner within a period of three months after the receipt of this order.
7. It is clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.
MWA/M-214/L Bail dismissed.