Above titled revision petition is directed against the order of Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Poonch-Rawalakot dated 19-05-2007, whereby the petitioner was refused bail.
2. Brief facts leading to the background of the revision petition are that a case under Sections 458, A.P.C. and 17(3), E-H.A. was registered at Police Station Rawalakot on the complaint of Ayyaz Khadim. It was reported that complainant's father was living in Amman for the last 30 years to earn livelihood who came back to home seven days prior to the occurrence. On 26-07-2005 the complainant went to Rawalakot bazaar and stayed there due to heavy rain. At about 8.30, p.m. as he reached home. Two accused persons armed with Kalashnikovs forcibly took him to his father's room where three more young accused persons armed with pistols were present and were searching the rooms. They collected gold ornaments such as ear rings, bangles, rings, locket, chain, mobile phone, Camera, torches and cash etc. The accused persons locked the inmates of the house in a room and took away the above mentioned articles.
3. During investigation the accused petitioner was arrested by the Police. He applied for bail which was refused through the impugned order. Hence this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the occurrence took place during dark hours of the night. The accused petitioner was not identified by the complainant at the time of commission of offence. Recovery of stolen articles was highly doubtful. The accused petitioner was involved in a false case by the Police. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the material on record was not sufficient to connect him with the alleged offence, therefore, the impugned order being incorrect and against law may be set aside and by accepting the revision petition the petitioner be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, it was argued that there was no enmity between the accused petitioner and complainant or prosecution witnesses, thus question of false implication does not arise. During investigation he was found guilty for the alleged offence. Some stolen articles and cash were recovered from him and prima facie he was connected with the offence, thus, it cannot be said that Court below committed any error while refusing bail. The impugned judgment being correct and in accordance with law needs no interference, therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. It may be mentioned here that prosecution examined 12 out 21 witnesses cited in the challan. The complainant, his father, mother and others identified the petitioner as one who committed the offence alongwith 4 others the absconders. They ascribed petitioner for playing an active role in the occurrence and coupled with the fact that stolen articles and cash were recovered from him. It cannot be said that the case of the petitioner was covered by sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. In light of the fact listed above, I am of the opinion, that the trial Court did not commit any error while refusing bail to the petitioner, therefore, finding no force in this revision petition, it is hereby dismissed.