Asim alias Ahmad Bakhsh has sought post arrest bail in a case registered against him and others through FIR No, 427, dated 30.08.2010, U/S. 392 PPC at Police Station Saddar, Sadiqabad, District Rahimyar Khan, on the complaint of Muhammad Sarwar, about an occurrence which took place in between the night 15/16.6.2010. Later-on, offence u/S. 411 PPC was also added to the FIR.
2. It is appropriate to mention before mentioning the facts of the case that in this case, petitioner was arrested by police on 03.09.2010 and thereafter, recovery of certain articles was made from him on 7.9.2010 and then he was sent to judicial lock-up. His post arrest bail was granted learned trial Court vide its order dated 18.10.2010. Thereafter, complainant party went on cancellation of bail of the petitioner, the same was cancelled ay learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 19.1.2011. Hence, instant application.
3. Tersely, the prosecution case as set-up by the complainant in the FIR is that complainant proceeded to offer Umrah on 03.06.2010. In between the night 15/16.06.2010 at about 1.00 a.m., Rashid Khan Sarwar, his son, was asleep in veranda of the house whereas wife of the complainant, was also sleeping on a cot, placed nearby. Three unknown persons, whose descriptions have been mentioned in the FIR, forcibly entered in the house while climbing over the wall, who were having weapons with them, and forcibly removed net cash Rs, 50,000/-, licensee repeater gun, whose number has been mentioned in the FIR, bicycle and also ornaments of gold weighing 6 tolas. While getting away from the spot, culprits intimidated the son of the petitioner, not to initiate any proceedings against them. It has further been mentioned in the FIR that son of the complainant had intimated the complainant on a cell in Saudi Arabia, then complainant came back on 19.06.2010. Thereafter, he kept on searching the culprits and then he came to know names of the culprits as Asim S/o Luqman petitioner Talib S/O Muhammad Hussain and Tariq S/O Muhammad Hussain. Thereafter, case was lodged. Hence bail application.
4. In support of this bail application, it has been argued that there is delay of about two months in lodging the FIR, about which no plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution; false recovery of some ornaments of gold has been planted upon the petitioner and petitioner was granted bail. Thereafter, his bail was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and at this stage, he is not required for any purpose of investigation and prima-facie, offence u/S. 392 PPC is not made out and at the maximum, offence u/S. 411 PPC is made out against the petitioner, the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
5. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application on the grounds that petitioner is a mobster and prior to lodgment of instant case, he remained involved in case FIRs No, 509/10, 427/10 and 450/10, lodged at Police Station Sadiqabad, of the like nature in which, petitioner has sought bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that such like incidents are being flourished in the society and if accused are not restrained with iron hands, then peace and tranquility of the society would be at stake and in such like cases, accused are not entitled for the concession of bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
7. There is delay of about two months in lodging FIR, about which no reasonable explanation has been given and the reason given in the FIR about its explanation is preposterous, petitioner in the first round of bail application, was granted bail and thereafter, his bail was cancelled. Whatever was required to be recovered from the petitioner, the same has already been recovered. Source through which the complainant came to know about name of the petitioner and his co-accused has not been mentioned in the FIR, however, after 3rd day of lodgment of FIR, statements of four PWs were recorded by the I.O., who named the petitioner and his co-accused in their statements.
Prima- facie, offence u/S. 392 PPC needs further inquiry whereas offence u/S. 411 PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has been convicted in any case prior to the registration of instant case. Therefore, relying upon the case titled 'Noon Muhammad vs. The State" (2008 SCM R 1556), instant petition is allowed and petitioner is granted post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.