MUHAMMAD LIAQAT Versus State
ORDER
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.--- Both these petitions raise out of F.I.R. No.342 of 2011 dated 6-7-2011 Police Station Eminabad, District Gujranwala, under section 392, P.P.C. so are being decided through this single order.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set forth in the F.I.R. recorded on the application of Muhammad Tariq complainant is that on the night between 5/6-7-2011, he was sleeping along with other members of his family, when three persons armed with fire arms made trespass in the house and extorted a sum of Rs.2,50,000, gold ornaments weighing 20 tolas, one sewing machine, one gold chain and 12 watches from him and also a sum of Rs.35,000, one gold ring and three mobile phones from the house of his cousin. The robbers were young and of moderate heights. He, Muhammad Arif and Tahir could identify them on face to face confrontation. Subsequently on 26-7-2011, he nominated the present petitioners along with another person.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the supplementary statement cannot be equated with the F.I.R.; that no source is disclosed by whom the names of the petitioners were disclosed as culprits; that no identification parade was held; that the photographic finger and palm prints of the culprits were secured at the spot and were compared, with the digit impressions/prints of the petitioners but according to the Finger Prints Bureau, Punjab, the same do not match with each other and that the petitioners do not bear history of involvement in such cases in the past.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned D.P.-G. have vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that the petitioners were traced on use of snatched mobile sets; that Liaqat petitioner led to the recovery of Rs.5,000, two ear rings and one ring, whereas Muhammad Boota petitioner led to the recovery of Rs.6,000 and two ear rings and that these ornaments were identified by the complainant in the Police Station so there is sufficient material available on the record to connect the petitioners with the commission of the offence falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is further urged that three persons had entered in the house and two 2/3 had remained in the street so the mere fact that the finger prints of the petitioner did not match with the finger prints of the culprits is not sufficient to prove that they are not connected with the commission of the offence.
5. The report of the Finger Prints Bureau clearly reveals that the fingers and palms prints of the petitioners do not match with the prints of fingers and palms of the culprits, which were lifted/secured after the occurrence. In these circumstances, a reasonable doubt arises regarding involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence. These modern techniques usually lead to a correct conclusion and should be resorted to as far as possible in the investigation of criminal cases. Moreover no identification parade was held. The identification of the ornaments in the Police Station cannot be given any weight at this stage. The case against the petitioners clearly needs further probe and inquiry within the meanings of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. For the reasons supra, both the petitions are accepted and the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two lacs only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
H.B.T./M-382/L Bail granted.