This is 1st petition on the subject on behalf of Shahbaz Ali petitioner, whereas this is 2nd petition to the extent of Muhammad Yousaf, petitioner, whose earlier petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. 8075- B/2012 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.08.2012.
2. Through the instant petition, Shahbaz Ali, whereas through Crl. Misc. No. 14068-B/2012, Sheikh Muhammad Yousaf, petitioners seek their post arrest bail in case FIR No. 918/2011, dated 17.8.2011, offence under Sections 395, 412, PPC, registered with Police Station, Millat Town, Faisalabad.
3. By this single order, I would like to dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 14121-B/2012 as well as Crl. Misc. No. 14068-B/2012 as both of them are arising out of one and the same FIR.
4. Prosecution story, in brief, as contained in the crime report is that on 16.08.2011, 8/9 accused persons looted/snatched the cotton cloth valuing 20,00,000/-, bicycle and mobile phone, from the factory of the complainant on gun point. Subsequently the petitioners were arrayed as accused in the instant case through supplementary statement dated 30.09.2011.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances with ulterior motives. It is argued that the petitioners are not named in the crime report, rather they have been implicated in the instant case through supplementary statement recorded on 30.09.2011 i.e. with the delay of 44 days of the alleged occurrence, without any plausible explanation in this regard. It is next argued that even in the supplementary statement, no source of information has been mentioned by the complainant wherefrom he gathered knowledge qua involvement of the petitioners in the instant case. It is contended that even no test identification parade has been conducted in the instant case to ascertain involvement of the petitioners in the instant case. While arguing the case of Sheikh Muhammad Yousaf petitioner, learned counsel submits that allegation against the petitioner is that he is instrumental in purchasing the stolen property/cloth. It is submitted that the brother of the petitioner produced Rs.1,75,000/- for oath purposes, but the Investigating Officer planted the said amount against the petitioner as price of the looted property and while arguing the case on behalf of Shahbaz Ali, learned counsel contends that recovery of 8000 meter cotton cloth has been planted by the Investigating Officer only to strengthen the prosecution version, otherwise the petitioner has no nexus with the crime alleged against him. It is argued by learned counsel for both the petitioners that in such circumstances the case against the petitioners become one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the petitioners are behind the bars since the date of their arrest and investigation being complete their corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation and as such no useful purpose would be served by their further detention in jail.
6. Contrarily learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition with full force. It is argued that though the petitioners are not named in the crime report, however they have been implicate by the complainant through supplementary statement. It is argue that an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- as price of the stolen property and 8000 meter cotton cloth/stolen property was recovered from Sheikh Muhammad Yousaf and Shahbaz Ali petitioners respectively during the course of investigation, which sufficiently connect them with the commission of the offence alleged against them. Moreover, the petitioners are involved in 4/5 other cases of similar nature and as such they are not entitled to the relief prayed for.
7. Arguments advanced at the bar heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
8. Admittedly both the petitioners are not named in the crime report: rather they have been implicated in the instant case through supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 30.09.2011 i.e. with the delay of 44 days of the alleged occurrence, without rendering any plausible explanation in this regard by the prosecution. Even in the supplementary statement, no source of information has been mentioned by the complainant wherefrom he got any knowledge qua involvement of the petitioners in the instant case. Even no test identification parade has been conducted in the instant case to ascertain involvement of the petitioners in the instant case. When confronted, learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as learned counsel for the complainant frankly conceded that in the other 4/5 cases as well, the petitioners are not named in the crime reports and have been implicated through supplementary statements. Moreover, collective and joint role has been ascribed to the accused persons in the crime report. In such circumstances the case against the petitioners becomes one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. As far as recovery allegedly affected from Shahbaz Ali petitioner is concerned, evidentiary value of the same would be determined by the learned trial Court during trial after recording of evidence as no specific identification of the stolen cloth has been given in order to ascertain that whether the recovered cloth was the case property. Moreover, the recovery of Rs.1,75,000/- from Sheikh Muhammad Yousaf, petitioner is also of general pattern. The petitioners are behind the bars since the date of their arrest and investigation being complete their corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation and in such circumstances further detention of the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose. The culpability of the petitioners would be determined by the learned trial Court during trial after recording of evidence.
9. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is persuaded to admit the petitioners to post arrest bail. Resultantly, both the petitioners namely Shahbaz Ali and Sheikh Muhammad Yousaf (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. 14068-B/2012) are admitted to bail after-arrest subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.