MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus State

ORDER

HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--- The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.9 of 2006, dated 9-1-2006 under section 412, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Thingi District Vehari.

2. According to the prosecution story 2.0D car valuing Rupees twelve lacs (12,00,000) was recovered from the possession of the petitioner which was snatched by the petitioner and two others at the gun point from Muhammad Iqbal, driver of the complainant. Initially the said car was taken into possession by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. After the receipt of information about the recovery of the car the complainant identified the same and thereafter the above said case was registered against the petitioner and two others.

3. Prior to the present application the petitioner applied for bail after arrest which was refused by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, he approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari but with the same result and his application for post-arrest bail was dismissed vide order, dated 9-2-2006.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is quite innocent; that the investigation has been completed; that it was a case of joint recovery from three persons; that no identification parade was conducted by the police during the investigation. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is delay of 31 days in lodging the F.I.R. He adds that the petitioner was arrested on 9-1-2006 and as such he is languishing in the jail for the period of more than 10 months. He adds that contents of the F.I.R. do not constitute the offence under section 412, P.P.C. and at the most it is a case of 411 P.P.C. which does not fall within the prohibitory clause. For seeking the relief of post-arrest bail, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:--

(1) AIR 1970 SC 535;

(2) AIR 1994 SC 968;

(3) 1997 SCMR 412;

(4) PLD 1966 Dacca 98;

(5) 1985 PCr.LJ 571.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed bail application on the ground that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. He further submits that petitioner is not having a good record and antecedents and earlier to this F.I.R. he was involved in two cases of murder along with dacoity bearing F.I.R. Nos. 308 of 2005 and 332 of 2005 registered at Police Station City Mailsi.

6. After hearing the arguments I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R., according to which the petitioner along with two other persons snatched car in question from the driver of the complainant. The said car was recovered from his possession. Earlier to this F.I.R., the petitioner was involved in two cases of murder along with daocity so he cannot claim himself to be a person of good record. The case law relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case inasmuch as in the case reported as Muhammad Rafiq v. The State (1997 SCMR 412), the bail was granted to the accused who was involved in a case registered under section 394, P.P.C., mainly on the ground that the said accused was neither named in the F.I.R. nor he was made subject to identification parade. As far as other two cases i.e. (AIR 1994 SC 968) and (AIR 1970 SC 535) are concerned the same are not applicable to the facts of present case. Like-wise the other cases relied upon by the petitioner are not helpful to him. The crux which can be derived from all the above mentioned cases is that to make out a case under section 412, P.P.C., it must be proved that not only the accused was in possession of the property in question but it should further be proved that he knew or has reason to believe that the property had been transferred by commission of the dacoity. In the present case opening para of the F.I.R. prima facie shows that petitioner was fully aware of the fact that car in question was snatched in a dacoity. The assertion of the complainant as made in F.I.R. that his car was recovered by the police from a gang of cars snatchers, is also significant and cannot be lost sight of. It is further observed that offence under section 412, P.P.C. falls within the scope of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

7. For the reasons mentioned above the petitioner is not found to be entitled to bail. However, keeping in view the period of detention of the petitioner behind the bars, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within two months after receipt of this order. Dismissed.

S.M.B./M-715/L Petition dismissed.