NAZIR NADEEM vs THE STATE

ORDER

' Through this application the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,6 registered on 7-3- 2001 under section 395, P.P.C. Read with section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979) at Police Station Toba Tek Singh on the statement of Zaheer Altaf.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a driver of the bus. On 2-3-1995 he was going to Faisalabad from Sadiqabad. At 2-30 a.m. When the bus reached at Chak No,285/JB Gojra Road six unknown persons gave an indication for the stoppage of the bus which was stopped. One of the accused who was armed with a pistol fired which hit a light of the bus. The other accused was also armed with rifle and the remaining two were armed with pistols. Two of them were empty-handed. They entered into the bus and snatched the money from the passengers.

According to the complainant he has come to know about a reliable source that Nasir petitioner is responsible for the dacoity and if he is arrested he can get the accused arrested. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R that Nasir was apprehended and he denied the allegations and at last told that Zafar Ullah, Aziz Ullah, Yousaf Ali, Muhammad Aslam and Khalil were alongwith him who had committed the dacoity. This was stated before the complainant by Nasir accused-petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. Which has not been explained by the prosecution. He further contends that the involvement of the petitioner is on behest of the conductor who was inimical to the petitioner in this case. He further contends that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner out of the looted amount. He further contends that twelve respectable persons have sworn affidavits in favour of the petitioner about his innocence.

The father of the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,5539 of 1995 against the police as the police was raiding the house of the petitioner. Due to this reason the petitioner has been involved in this case.

4. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the challan has been submitted and the case is pending trial. The petitioner is involved in a very heinous offence.

He further contends that if he is released on bail he will put the life and property of the people in danger.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Admittedly nothing has been recovered from the petitioner out of the case property of this F.I.R. He was arrested on the ground that the complainant has told to the police that he has confessed before him for the commission of the dacoity. The complainant has failed to mention what were the reliable sources by which he came to know that the petitioner has participated in the occurrence. I have also noticed that it is an old case and the challan has been submitted to the Court. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and has nothing to be recovered from him. The petitioner cannot be put in jail for an indefinite period merely on the ground that he is involved in a heinous offence. No doubt involvement of an accused in a heinous offence is a ground for refusal of bail but first of all the prosecution is bound to collect the evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. In this case merely recovery of pistol has been effected which in any manner is not corroborative piece of evidence. The statement of the complainant recorded by the police that the petitioner has confessed before him has not been corroborated by any recovery of articles out of any articles looted during the commission of the crime. As far as the contentions of the learned A.A.-G. Are concerned that the challan has been submitted in the Court the submission of challan is not a bar for the grant of bail. I am fortified by judgment reported as PLD 1994 SC 133 the august Supreme Court has held that even if the challan is submitted bail can be granted but cannot be cancelled because it can prejudice the case of any of the parties. From bare perusal of the record and the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties the involvement of the petitioner prima facie in this case is doubtful. The benefit of doubt is to be given to an accused at any stage as has been held in PLD 1973 SC 277. Similarly bail cannot be withheld as a punishment as has been laid down in judgment reported as PLD 1972 SC 81. The petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for bail after arrest.

6. This application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.