Imdad Hussain seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 329/09 dated 09.07.2009 u/Ss. 392, 411 P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Farid Town, District Sahiwal on the complaint of Sajid Iqbal.
2. Precisely, the prosecution case as stated by the complainant is that he was moving towards his house after closing his clinic and on the way he was intercepted by four unknown accused persons, two of whom were armed with Sotas, one was armed with a pump action gun and fourth was empty handed; the above mentioned accused snatched cash, a cell phone and fled away on the motorcycle of the complainant after having tied him and his brother.
3. The complainant made a supplementary on 20.07.2009 during the course of investigation wherein he contended that he had strong suspicion against the accused/petitioner and three others but he did not disclose the source and reason of such doubts.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR; the external features of the unknown accused or complexions etc. have not been mentioned in the FIR by the complainant; the statement of the complainant is inadmissible in evidence being a belated attempt on his part to falsely implicate the petitioner in the instant case; the recovery allegedly shown against the petitioner is irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence, being a joint recovery; the petitioner does not have any previous antecedents and he merits release on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner with the contention that he was nominated as an accused by the complainant in his supplementary statement and thereafter he absconded and was arrested on 16.08.2009 after the requisite proceedings under the law had already been conducted against him; the petitioner led to the recovery of Nokia cell phone and motorcycle of the complainant on 20.08.2009; the witnesses support the version of the complainant and he has been found involved in the occurrence by the Investigation Officer and placed in column No, 3 of the challan.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The petitioner is not nominated in the FIR nor his external features etc. have been mentioned by the complainant. The supplementary statement of the complainant is hardly relevant in attending circumstances of the case, as it cannot be read as an integral part of the FIR which at the most can be deemed as a statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. The fabrication of supplementary statement by the I.O. during the course of investigation of a criminal case is a recent innovation, which has been devised by the incompetent police officers so as to cut short the process of investigation without realizing as to how-much damage it does to the case of the prosecution, which is lamentable. I have gone through the recovery memo. of the cell phone and the motorcycle dated 20.08.2009 which indicates that these articles were recovered at the instance of the three accused jointly. The true import of such joint recovery shall be assessed during the course of the trial by the learned trial Court. The evidence of abscondence is hardly relevant against the petitioner as he had not been nominated in the FIR, and was introduced as an accused through supplementary statement of the complainant. There are sufficient reasons to believe that the petitioner's case is open to further inquiry into his guilt within the meaning of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.
8. Therefore, I admit the petitioner 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 learned trial Court.