The complainant has alleged in FIR No, 139 of 2009 dated 01.11.2009 under Sections 395/411 P.P.0 registered at Police Station Kotli Sattian, Rawalpindi, that six unknown accused with muffled faces trespassed into his house, made hostage the inmates of the house and looted property including cash, gold ornaments, tape recorder, cell phone etc. at gunpoint; the unknown accused whispered with each other during the occurrence and demanded rifle .7 M.M from the complainant and they used slang language during the occurrence.
2. The complainant moved an application on 16.09.2010, after about 11 months of the occurrence and nominated the petitioner as an accused on the basis of an alleged disclosure made by Azhar Mehmood, a co-accused of the petitioner who was arrested in this case on 03.09.2010.
3. It is submitted by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General that the petitioner was arrested on 28.10.2010 and led to the recovery of Rs, 2000/- cash and a pistol on 01,11.2010, when he was in the police custody.
4. The bail plea of the accused has been vociferously opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant with the submission that the petitioner is a habitual offender, previously involved in identical offences and that the people of the area had been having a sigh of relief as he stood imprisoned; the challan stands submitted before the learned trial Court on completion of investigation by the police and the petitioner alongwith his co-accused has been indicted and the case is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that the complainant nominated the petitioner as an accused after about 11 months of the occurrence mainly relying upon the allege& disclosure made by a co-accused of the petitioner, Azhar Mehmood who was arrested by the police on 03.09.2010. During the course of Investigation one Mumtaz Shaheen joined the investigation and tendered the snatched cell phone of the complainant to the I.O. by contending that it was sold to him by Azhar Mehmood accused. Mumtaz Shaheen according to the investigation record, was detected by the police on the basis of data of the telecom company pertaining to the said cell phone. The recovery of cash Rs,2000/- after about one year of the occurrence is hardly a circumstance which may link the petitioner with the commission of offence nor he can be expected of having preserved the currency notes for such a long period of time. The contention of learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner was a habitual offender has been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in terms that the petitioner was falsely involved in the said criminal cases and that he had been acquitted in all.
He has submitted the record of a couple of cases wherein the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court.
6. This is a case wherein the Investigating Officer could have collected admissable/viable/incriminating evidence against the accused but he appears to have been unable to do so, being short of knowledge of methodology of conducting investigation in such like offences, which is unfortunate. It is high time that the high-ups of the police, who are at. the helm of affairs, wake up and rejuvenate the system of investigation by applying modern technique and latest disciplines of criminology which, in the modern word are being exercised with scientific exactitude, so as to keep up with the requirements of the society in order to ensure the safety of life and property of the citizens. The police has to shrug off the traditional idleness and apathetic attitude to revive their lost image, in the minds of the public-at-large, as the rescuers. Prima-facie, reasonable grounds exist to believe that the petitioner's case falls within the precincts of further inquiry as contemplated under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.
7. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.