TARIQ MAHMOOD Versus STATE

ORDER

Tariq Mahmood and Awais Mahmood, petitioners, have moved this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. for the grant of post-arrest bail.

.

2. The facts of the case are that a case vide F.I.R. No.194/94, dated 2-5-1994 was registered on the statement of Riaz Ahmed, complainant, with Police Station Shad Bagh, Lahore under sections 380/382 and 454, P.P.C. The police after recording the statements of Shazia Ambreen, victim and her mother under section 161, Cr.P.C. and on receipt of medico-legal report added sections 10 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and 337-A, 337-I(ii), 337-F(i) of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance on 3-5-1994.

3. The- prosecution case as set up in the F.I.R. is that on the day of occurrence, the complainant alongwith his wife had gone to the office of Small Business Finance Corporation; Shazia Ambreen was alone in the house; on their return they found missing golden ornaments and cash of Rs.20,000. The complainant was of the belief that theft had been committed by Jani, Awais (petitioner No.2) and their co-accused. Later on, as mentioned above, after the receipt of medico-legal report, section 10 of Ordinance VII of 1979 was added.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that Tariq Mahmood, petitioner No. l has not been named in the F. I. R.; that the petitioners have been declared innocent by the police and placed in Column No.2 of the challan. It is submitted that law should not be stretched in favour of the prosecution and should be liberally construed to provide relief to an accused person, who under the law, is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Akbar and another v. The State 1992 P Cr. L J 2624. Learned counsel states that Sohaib, co-accused of the petitioners was discharged by the Illaqa Magistrate being innocent. It is submitted that nothing has been recovered from the petitioners though they remained on remand for 14 days and as such'/z section 382, P.P.C. was deleted. Further, no other independent evidence except the statement of Shazia Ambreen is available with the prosecution to involve the petitioners in the commission of offence. It is also urged that the medico-legal report falsified the prosecution case. It is lastly argued that though the challan is complete, yet the trial has not commenced and the petitioners are in jail for the last more than two months. The concession of bail is sought' on behalf of the petitioners to have a fair chance to defend themselves. In this regard, reliance was placed on Salemat v. The State. 1992 P Cr. L J 1498. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on Muhammad Rantzan alias Jani v. The State 1.988 P Cr. L J 1159, Gulzar Ahmed v. The State 1992 P Cr. L J 1616; Muhammad Hussain and others v. The State 1992 P Cr. L J 1683.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that Shazia is mentally distorted lady. Further, the parents of accused offered Rs. two lacs for affecting compromise to the parents of Shazia which was notaccepted. According to him, it prima facie shows that the petitioners are involved in the commission of offence. Learned counsel submits that the factum of offer of Rs. two lacs also finds mention in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge.

6. Learned counsel for the State also opposes the petition by adopting the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail petition of the petitioners.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The statement of Shazia Ambreen is corroborated by medical evidence which shown that her hymen was torn. The factum of offer of Rs. two lacs for compromise (not refuted even before me) also prima facie shows involvement of the petitioners in the commission of heinous crime. There is admittedly no other young girl except A Shazia in the house of the complainant to give support to the plea set up by the petitioners. The petitioners were arrested on 7-5-1994 and the offence with which they are charged falls within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C.

8. ???????? For all these reasons, I am not inclined to, extend the benefit of bail to the petitioners. The bail petition is dismissed.

9. Before parting with this judgment, I am at pains to note that investigation of this case was conducted improperly inasmuch as all the four Investigating Officers did not even mention any whereabout the mental condition/distortion of Shazia Ambreen, the victim. She is present in Court accompanied by her mother and by a naked eye. appears to be of unsound mind. This being the position, a copy of this order will be sent to D.I.-G., Lahore range who will personally look into the matter and submit a detailed report limelighting the actions taken against the delinquent police officers under his own signature, to this Court.

N.H.Q./T-90/L ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????? Bail refused.