The petitioner was arrested in this case under Section 54, Cr.P.C. on 05.03.2010. He underwent physical remand for 12 days and was dispatched to judicial lock up on 17.03.2010. During the course of his physical custody he led to the recovery of Rs, 10,000/- cash, a pistol and four live bullets on 08.03.2010.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated as an accused in the FIR; no test identification parade has been conducted in this case; despite having undergone 12 days physical remand no looted property was recovered from the possession of the petitioner; there is no direct or indirect connecting evidence on the record against the petitioner; the supplementary statement made by the complainant on 30.06.2010 does not offer any explanation as to why he remained tight lipped for a period exceeding three months; the petitioner is a previous non-convict and his case calls for further inquiry within the scope of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
3. Conversely, the learned DPG submits that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused had committed dacoity at the residential house of the complainant, who is a Major in Pak-Army and by rendering the inmates of the house hostages at gunpoint, looted valuables worth lacs 'of rupees and that they repeated the offence as they committed another occurrence of the identical nature at the residence of Major Daud-ur-Rehman; the prosecution witnesses in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. supported the prosecution case as contained in the FIR; the petitioner got recovered Rs, 10,000/- cash, a pistol and four live bullets on 08.03.2010 during the course of physical remand; the complainant in his supplementary statement has averred that the accused-petitioner had admitted his guilt on 14.03.2010 at the Police Station wherein he confessed to have sold the looted gold ornaments to some goldsmiths and also named them; the petitioner has a history of involvement in as many as 13 criminal cases of identical nature and that he is a permanent menace to life and property of the public-at-large.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It has been alleged by the complainant that he alongwith his wife returned to his house at about 1.00 p.m. on 30.01.2010 when they . were overpowered by four unknown armed men who after making them hostages looted gold ornaments, cash and other accessories at gunpoint. He has further alleged that after ransacking his house the accused entered the mansion of Major Daud- ur-Rehman and committed another occurrence of dacoity in the same fashion. The detail of the occurrence as, contained in the FIR necessitated the holding of the test identification parade in this case but the police, as usual showed gross indulgence and lethargy by not going for the said exercise. The supplementary statement of the complainant recorded by him on 30.06.2010 is inconsequential and hardly furnishes any evidence against the petitioner as he has alleged therein that the accused-petitioner had admitted his guilt before the Investigation Officer in his presence at the Police Station on 14.03.2010. He has not offered any explanation as to the period of taciturnity, which renders his supplementary statement, a nullity, which even, otherwise is not acceptable under any provision of law. The recovery of cash Rs, 10,000/- does not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner, as the allegedly recovered currency notes do not bear any distinctive marks and such an evidence could easily be managed by the prosecution during the course of investigation. The other recovery of the pistol and four live bullets is equally inconsequential as these articles can hardly be considered as the case property.
6. It has been held time and again by this Court as well as by the Apex Court of the country that a supplementary statement is a recent innovation, not recognized by law, which has been devised by incompetent, incapable, and dishonest police officers to 'cut short the process of investigation without bearing in mind that such a short cut adopted by them is generally destructive to the case of the prosecution. A supplementary statement cannot be read as an integral part of the FIR and at the best, it has to be considered a statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C.
7. The petitioner was arrested in this case as a suspect on 05.03.2010 and underwent physical remand for about 12 days but during the intervening period the police has failed to collect any connecting evidence against him. The involvement of the petitioner in a number of criminal cases of the identical nature cannot dub him as a hardened or a desperate criminal till he is shown to be a convict in any of the above-said criminal cases. Mere factum of involvement in a number of criminal cases without conviction in any case, cannot impede grant of bail to the petitioner.
Reliance in this behalf is placed on Moundar and others v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934). In the above circumstances, I find that the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the meanings of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
8. For what has been discussed above, I accept the instant application and admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.