SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The complainant, Muhammad Sher has alleged in the FIR that eleven
(11) unknown armed persons clambered over the outer wall to enter his house at about mid-night, between 15/16.12.2012, rendered all the inmates hostages, broke open locks of the boxes to seize gold- ornaments, cash, unstitched cloth, wrist watches etc., confined all of them in a room and slipped away with the looted property; the electric bulbs were lit at the time of the occurrence, so he and his family members could identify the accused if they would see them again.
2. The complainant rendered a supplementary statement on 01.12.2013 whereby he quoted names of Falak Sher and Haji Sher Muhammad to nominate seven persons, including the petitioner as accused of this case. Falak Sher and Haji Sher Muhammad joined investigation the same day (01.12.2013) whereby they contended that seven accused, Muhammad Aslam, Qasim alias Zulfiqar, Arshad known as Ghulam Mustafa (petitioner), Shahzeb, Ghulam Shabbir, Aamir and Umar admitted their guilt before them, one by one, as to having committed dacoity in the house of Muhammad Sher (complainant). The petitioner was arrested on 28.01.2014 and he led to the recovery of pistol .30 bore on 09.02.2014 and Rs,10,000/- cash on 10.02.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and he has been sent to jail only to satisfy whimsical grudge of the complainant. Further contended that .Evidence of extra judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence which has been fabricated by the prosecution to fill-in the gaps of its case. Lastly urged that the scarcity of incriminating evidence brings the petitioner's case within the ambit of further inquiry as contemplated under section.497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. In contrary to it, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition by contending in unison that the petitioner is a dacoit who in cahoots of his co-accused committed a heinous crime and seized precious articles from the house of the complainant, value whereof ran into lacs of rupees. Lastly urged that the prosecution case brimmed with connecting evidence against the petitioner, therefore, his plea for bail may be turned down.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the story of FIR looks hair-raising, so far as daredevilry of the accused and haplessness of the complainant is concerned. The crime was committed by eleven (11) unknown men who all were armed with rifles and guns. They allegedly seized almost every costly item available at the residence of the complainant, after they confined all of them in a room. Arms of the complainant and his family members were tied on their back. It all makes it a heinous crime but it does not mean that mere heinousness may be held sufficient to deal with 'subtle question of grant of bail to the accused-petitioner. The material collected by the investigating officer during investigation shall be relevant in this regard.
6. The complainant has categorically alleged in the FIR that he and his companions could identify the unknown accused, if he would ever see them again. He contended so, probably bearing in mind, that they light be asked one day by the Investigating Officer to identify them, but it did not happen at all, as Investigating Officer showed customary laziness and ineptitude, when investigating this case. He recorded supplementary statement of the complainant about one year after the alleged occurrence without ever perceiving that such an effort could hardly prove beneficial to the prosecution case in the long run.
7. The complainant referred to names of Falak Sher and Haji Sher Muhammad, when he introduced names of seven persons, including that of the petitioner as accused of this case, whereafter both the witnesses, named as above, were recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The same day. Their statements do not impress, as they withheld some of the crucial details about sudden appearance of seven accused before them to admit their guilt of having committed dacoity at the house of Muhammad Sher (complainant). They did not disclose as to when and where the 'group of seven' appeared before them to admit their guilt. It looks as if a joint extra judicial confession of the accused had been brought on the record by the Investigating Officer through statements of the said witnesses. It has been held on so many occasions that extra judicial confession of an accused is a weak type of evidence which may be manoeuvred by the prosecution in any case where direct connecting evidence does not come their way. In case, it is a joint extra judicial confession, the lesser commented upon, better might it be for the prosecution.
8. The petitioner was arrested on 28.01.2014 and he allegedly led to the recovery of pistol on 09.02.2014 and Rs,10,000/- cash on 12.02.2014, regarding which no memo of identification has been prepared by the Investigating Officer. The efficacy of this particular piece of evidence may better be evaluated by the learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties at trial. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 28.01.2014 and he is no more needed by the police for any recovery etc. There exist sufficient reasons to believe that his case called for further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, this application is allowed and he is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.