Manzoor son of Atta Muhammad, resident of Teekan, Tehsil an District D.I.Khan seeks bail as he is involved in case FIR No, 461 date 30.9.2008 under Sections 452/506/34 PPC of Police Station Sadda D.I.Khan. His request has been turned down by the learned Judici Magistrate-II, D.I.Khan and learned Additional Sessions JudgeD.I.Khan vide orders dated 08.10.2008 and 28.10.2008 respectively.
2. The facts of the case are that vide FIR No, 461 dated 30.9.20 Khalid son of Fazal Dad lodged a report at 1245 hours to the effect he alongwith the inmates of his house were lay asleep in their house. 0115 hours from the side of his neighbour Umar Hayat, Khyzer Hay son of Fazl-ur-Rehman, resident of Kulachi at present Sherdil Kot Manzoor son of Atta Muhammad, Caste Baloch, resident of Teekan a two other unknwn persons duly armed with Kalashnikovs entered in house. On the noise so raised, he was awakened and saw that at the point they asked the inmates of the house about the money a ornaments. On their resistance, the accused hit his brother Latif and father Fazal Dad with the 'Butts' of their rifles. On raising hue and c by the inmates, Khyzer Hayat fired in the air in order to intimidate the and thus, he charged all the four for the commission of the offence Resultantly, the local police registered the case under the above section of law.
3. Muhammad Adnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of he petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly and falsely charged in the FIR. The occurrence has taken place on 30.9.2008 of 01.15 a.m. but the report has been lodged at 1230 hours although the distance between the venue of occurrence and the Police Station is 7/8 kilometers. It was also argued that no recovery has been effected from he possession of the petitioner. It was also argued that the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not come within the prohibitory cause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and thus, prayed for the release of the petitioner on bail. Reliance was placed on the dicta hanued down in the Cases of Tariq Bashir and 5 others. Vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), Taqir Hussain Vs. Asad Ali Khan and another (2003 P.Cr.LJ 518 Peshawar) and Sarwar Vs. The State (2000 P.Cr.LJ 82 Lahore).
4. Muhammad Irfan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the petitioner has been directly charged in e FIR. He was neighbour of the complainant and there is no doubt out identification of the accused. It was also submitted that the offence which the petitioner is charged, comes within the purview of Section 7 PPC which amounts to lurking house trespass with intention to emit offence and thus, the local police has applied a wrong section of law.
5. Mr. Sanaullah Shamim Gandapur, learned Deputy Advocate general appearing for the State adopted the arguments of learned Counsel for the complainant.e
6. I have gone through the record of the case and have perused data available on the file.
7. Perusal of the record would show that this is not the quantum sentence which matters but the way and the venue of crime which the petitioner has committed by entering into the house of the complainant at gunpoint had asked the inmates of the house about the money the ornaments.
The sacredness of the house has been violated by the toner and his absconding co-accused and all the inmates of the were given 'Butt' blows as well as firing in order to criminally imidate the inmates. The statements of the inmates of the house Fly Muhammad Latif, Fazal Dad, Mst. Saidu Bibi, Mst. Miran Bibi, nawaz and Umar Hayat have fully corroborated the version of the plainant. No animosity has been pointed out for false charge.
8. It is not that in every case which is not' punishable with death, deportation for life or ten years RI the concession of bail should beended to an accused person. If on the data available on the record it is saved that the accuse had shown high handedness and has crossed the is of decency and morality, then in non-bailable offence he will not pentitled to the concession of bail as held in the case of Muhammad Siddique Vs. Mst. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCM R 442) and_ thus, in view of the dictum laid down the quoted authority, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, this bail application fails which is dismissed. However, the prosecution is directed to submit complete challan to the Court within one month and thereafter the learned trial Court is directed to concluded the trial positively within three months.
10. Before parting with this judgment, it is observed that if any fresh development takes place during the proceedings, the petitioner would be at liberty to move afresh for his release on bail and this order will not be a hurdle in his way to seek the concession of bail.