Above titled revision petition is directed against the order of Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Sehnsa, dated 15.05.2008, whereby the petitioner was refused bail.
2. Brief facts leading to the background of the revision petition are that a case under Sections 324/341, 337 A.P.0 and 17(3), of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement Hadd) Act, 1985 was registered at Police Station, Sehnsa on the complaint of Shamim Akhtar. It was reported that the complainant was bus driver by profession. On 03.03.2006 he was going to Baloch from Rawalpindi.
At about 03.30, a.m. when arrived near Nursery Forest Islamabad, Sehnsa, five accused persons covered with face mask and armed with .12 bore guns and pistols stopped the bus. They caused injuries at the person of complainant, Aqeel, Gulfraz and three others. They were also alleged for snatching money from passengers and the complainant. The occurrence was stated to be witnessed by Muhammad Aziz conductor of the bus, Kala and passengers of the bus.
3. After his arrest, the accused petitioner applied for bail before the trial Court but the same was refused through the impugned order, hence this revision petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a judicial fashion. Neither he was nominated in the F.I.R nor was identified during the occurrence or investigation. Only circumstance against the petitioner and other accused persons was recovery of stolen currency notes, the other accused were allowed bail while the same was refused to the petitioner without, any justification. The case of the accused petitioner was at par with those who were allowed bail by the trial Court, his case was covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C., thus requires further probe. He submitted that the impugned order being incorrect and against principles governing bail matter was not sustainable, therefore, the same may be set aside and by accepting the revision petition the petitioner also be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, it was argued that the petitioner was alleged for committing dacoity. Stolen currency notes were recovered from him. Sufficient material to connect the accused petitioner with the alleged offence was brought on record and a prima facie case existed against him, thus it cannot be said that the Court below committed any error while refusing bail, The impugned order being correct and in accordance with law and principles governing bail needs no interference, therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The accused petitioner and others were alleged for causing fire-arm injuries at the persons of Aqeel, Gulfraz and three other persons including the complainant. They were also alleged for snatching Rs, 1,45,920/- from the passengers of the bus. It was interesting to note that the occurrence took place on 03-03-2006 while the currency notes were recovered on 07-07-2007 and 17-07-2007 from the accused petitioner and others. Though the accused petitioner and others were alleged for committing offence under Section 13/20/65, Arms Act but no evidence showing that the weapons were recovered from them was brought on record, thus, it implies that only evidence against the accused petitioner was recovery of currency notes which in my view was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case against him.
8. In light of the facts listed above, the revision petition is accepted and the petitioner is granted bail. He shall be released from custody on furnishing bail bond in sum of Rs,5,00,000/- and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st Class, Rawalakot.