' Tariq Mahmood son of Dinar Ahmad seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.255, dated 20-5-2003 under sections 458, 380, 170, 342, 395, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Chunian, District Kasur at the instance of Haji Khan.
2. The allegations contained in the F.I.R. Are that during the night of 18/19-5-2003 at about 2-00 a.m.
Four persons driving a Pajero came at Safa Rice Mills where Haji Khan complainant was a Store- keeper. They introduced themselves to be police officers and informed that they had come to check rifles of Security Staff. They entered into the Mills through deceitful manner and locked the security guards in a room and committed dacoity of huge quantity of rice on five trucks after breaking open the locks of godown. They looted an AC and two pump actions guns and left at 4-00 a.m. S.H.O., Police Station, Chunian arrived at the spot after receipt of the information and initially it was found that 145 bags of rice each containing 50 Kg. Rice were missing from the godowns. The F.I.R. Was lodged on 20-5-2003 on the application of Haji Khan complainant. Originally the case was registered under sections 458 and 380, P.P.C. But subsequently offence was altered to section 395, P.P.C. After recording supplementary statement of the complainant.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 2-6-2003 and after completion of investigation has been sent in judicial logic-up. He was declined after arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian vide order dated 2-7-2003. Hence this petition.
4. In support of this petition, it has been argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R.; that no recovery has been effected from him; that no identification parade was held; that the petitioner has been implicated on the supplementary statement of complainant on 24-5-2003 in which 8 persons including the petitioner were nominated but no source or information has been disclosed that on what evidence the petitioner is being implicated in the case; that no description of vehicle used by the petitioner for commission of offence has been given in the F.I.R., that the petitioner has been involved due to political rivalry in the area, therefore, the case against him is that of further inquiry. "
5. The petition has been opposed by the learned State Counsel, who has argued that the Pajero which was used for commission of offence has been recovered from the petitioner alongwith revolving light to show that it is the vehicle used by the police; that the Pajero itself has been found as a stolen property of a case registered at. Rawalpindi Cantt. Vide F.I.R. No.184 of 1999, dated 27-5- 1999 under section 381, P.P.C.; that two truck drivers hired by the petitioner out of 5 have also been arrested and builtees in the name of petitioner have also been taken into possession apart from recovery of huge quantity of rice looted by the petitioner alongwith his co-accused; that delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has been explained by the police officials that as the rice was mortgaged with the bank and it was stated by the complainant that quantity looted will be disclosed after consultation with Bank officials and owners of the Mills otherwise the matter was reported soon after the occurrence took place.
6. I have given due consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel and perused the record.
7. It is correct that neither the petitioner nor any other accused have been nominated in the F.I.R.
But in supplementary statement all the accused have been duly nominated and during investigation the petitioner has been found guilty. The vehicle used in the commission of crime alongwith revolving light was recovered from his possession which itself has been found a stolen property of case registered at Police Station, Rawalpindi Cantt. Although the petitioner is a Nazim of Union Council but is involved in heinous offence and there is no reason for his false implication by the complainant. Nothing has been brought on record to show that he has been implicated due to political rivalry. Builtees of the trucks were also issued in the name of the present petitioner which corroborates the prosecution story apart from the recovery of huge quantity of rice. The petitioner is involved in a heinous offence which falls under the prohibitory clause, therefore, he is not entitled to bail. The, petition is dismissed having no force.