MUHAMMAD RASHID Versus State
ORDER
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.--- Through the instant petition filed in terms of section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case bearing FIR No.216/2015, dated 27.09.2015, offence under section 392, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Aroti, District Toba Tek Singh, at the instance of complainant, Mujahid Hussain.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story as narrated by the complainant in the FIR is that 27.09.2015 at about 12.00 noon, three unknown persons snatched motorcycle valuing Rs. 1,25,000/- and mobile phone Nokia 107 valuing Rs. 2000/- with SIM from him and fled away. Subsequently, the complainant involved the petitioner while recording his supplementary statement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the crime report and he has been roped in this case by the complainant while recording his supplementary statement after more than five months. Further contends that no specific role has been ascribed to the petitioner. Also contends that one of the co-accused, who was also nominated through supplementary statement by the complainant, has been declared innocent and the other co-accused was granted post arrest bail by the learned Magistrate. It is argued that no source of information has been given from where the complainant came to know that the present petitioner committed the alleged crime, otherwise, alleged recovery of Rs. 18000/- and Pistol, which has been shown to be effected from the petitioner, has been planted by the police only to strengthen the prosecution case. It is further argued that all these facts and circumstances make the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. It is also argued that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is lastly argued that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and his person is no more required by the police for further investigation and as such no useful purpose would be served by his further detention in jail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes this petition and submits that though the petitioner is not nominated in the crime report but he has been involved in this case by the complainant through supplementary statement and recovery of Rs.18000/- and Pistol has been effected from him, which is sufficient to connect him with the commission of the crime alleged.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the available record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is not nominated in the crime report, however, he has been involved in this case by the complainant while recording his supplementary statement but this Court cannot lose sight that the complainant did not disclose any plausible source from where he gathered the knowledge that the petitioner committed the crime alleged. Furthermore, only recovery of Rs.18000/- and Pistol has been shown to be affected from the petitioner, therefore, culpability of the petitioner would be seen by the learned trial court after recording of evidence. As far as the involvement of the petitioner in other cases is concerned, no case of such like nature is registered against him. The petitioner, who is the first offender, is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and investigation being complete, his person is no more required by the police for further investigation. His further detention in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
7. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is persuaded to hold that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of relief sought for. Resultantly, while allowing this petition, the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his boil bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
ZC/M-193/L Bail granted.