MUHAMMAD SAJJAD Versus State
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The petitioners were booked for the offences under sections 457/380, P.P.C. vide FIR No. 06/2016 of Police Station Sost Gojal Hunza on 30.09.2016.
2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the FIR and narrated in para 2 of the judgment handed down by the learned Sessions Judge Hunza-Nagar are given below:-
"The case against the accused/petitioners is that on the night of 30.09.2016 at about 1930 hours, they by scaling the compound wall entered into the Customs Dry Port Sost and committed theft of three cartons containing 157 mobile phones of Samsung 131 mobile phones of L.G, 20 mobile phones of Motorola, 135 phones of HTC and 38 mobile phones of Huawei (total 481 mobile phones) besides other parts of mobile phones. The value of the stolen property is stated to be worth Rs. 30,00,000/-. The constables of KSF deployed on outer duty of the dry port apprehended two of the accused namely Muhammad Sajjad and Syed Naqib Shah red-handedly on the spot. Accordingly on the report of FC Raziq Shah of KSF, the SHO Police Station, Sost registered the above captioned FIR. The SHO arrested the 3rd accused Iftikhar Gul on 03.10.2016, who on seeing the police had managed to make good his escape from the scene of occurrence through the main gate by dodging the gatekeeper. The petitioners applied for the concession of bail which the lower Court refused through order dated 08.10.2016, hence the application in hand."
3. The petitioners applied for bail in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Hunza, who declined the same vide order dated 08.10.2016. The petitioners approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge Hunza, for the same relief which met with the same fate. The petitioners sought bail through filing the instant petition before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. Per learned counsel the mobiles were purchased from Yousuf Mobiles NLI Market Gilgit and were taken to Sost for the purpose of sale. The local police intercepted the petitioners and booked them in the instant case just to show their efficiency. The learned counsel further argued that the provisions of section 457, P.P.C. are not attracted as it is evident from bare reading of FIR that the petitioners were caught red handed by the local police while standing outside the compound wall of Sost Dry Port. The petitioners are poor carriers and are the sole bread earner of their families. The detention of the petitioners will not serve any useful purpose.
5. On the other hand the learned Dy. A.-G, opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners were caught red handed and contraband mobiles, which are not allowed to be imported without prior permission of PTA worth 3 million were recovered from their possession. Neither the plea of ill will or any motive for false implication of the petitioners/accused have been raised nor the same is borne out from the record. There is prima facie case against the petitioners/accused and more so the offence under section 457, P.P.C. falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., and bail in such like heinous cases are not allowed by the superior Courts.
6. Having heard both the parties at a considerable length and perusal of police record shows and as evident from the judgment/order of learned Sessions Judge Hunza, the petitioners were employed by Safdar Enterprizes Pvt. Ltd, who are importing goods from China and, as, I, have already held in a Cr. Misc. Titled Javed Hussain v. The State, while disposing a petition under section 516-A, Cr.P.C., that the record available with police shows that 3 cartons of mobile phones which were recovered from the petitioners were allegedly brought into Sost Dry Port by concealing the same in any other legally imported items. The astonishing factor of the case is that it is mentioned in the FIR that some of the Customs personnel also reached at the spot, when the present petitioners were arrested but they did not bother to get custody of these items, when as per prosecution version they were thrown out from the compound of Sost Dry Port. FIR reflects that some persons were throwing these items from inside who were never brought to books. None from Safdar Enterprizes Pvt. Ltd. was associated with the investigation, who were the real beneficiaries. Over and above one Javed Hussain claimed superdrai of these mobiles showing him to be the real owner. All this became possible due to collusion of security guards of Sost Dry Port and Customs authorities, who have been neither associated in investigation nor a single word regarding their involvement/or otherwise was found in Police record.
7. One wonder with teary eyes, up to what extent our moral values have declined. The rich and influential people could easily manage their nasty affairs by utilizing their resources and paying bribe to the persons sitting in helm of the affairs. The law enforcing agencies also tight the rope around the neck of poor and detrodden people, who cannot scumb or meet their illegal demand. The case in hand is a classical example of the high handedness of police, Customs and some of the traders, who all are in league and eating the government exchequer like ant.
8. The people like the present petitioners being from poor and humble back ground are employed, by these traders and when such mischief is unearthed, these are made scapegoats and their masters enjoy liberty. Since the master mind of this episode are out of clutches of law and will never be brought to books by the law enforcing agencies being their partner in crime. The detention of the present petitioners further in jail will not serve any purpose. The question regarding applicability of section 457, P.P.C., when they were standing outside the compound wall of Sost Dry Port needs serious consideration and brings the case, within the purview of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
9. As sequel of above discussions the petitioners are allowed bail subject to their furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lac) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.
JK/257/GB Bail allowed.