MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner/accused was booked for the offences vide FIR No, 01/16 dated 26-01-2016 registered at Police Station Basin.
2.. The brief facts of the case are that on 26-01-2016 the house of petitioner was raided on Spy information and from the roof of the house a bag was found lying there and on opening the bag five hand gernades and some other illicit arms/ammunition were found, which were taken into possession in presence of the marginal witnesses, who are Police officials.
3. The raiding party was headed by SIP Ghulam Mustafa, who sent a murasila for registration of FIR to SHO, Basin and on the said murasila FIR No, 01/16 was registered.
4. The petitioner/accused was not present in his home and was arrested later on the following day of occurrence.
5. The petitioner/accused applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge but the same was refused vide judgment/order dated 24-05-2016 and being aggrieved from the order mentioned above, he filed instant petition before this Court for grant of bail.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is false and the accused has been falsely implicated. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the house was not in exclusive possession of the accused, as the father and other brothers of the accused are living in the same house. The accused/petitioner has been arrested on the following day of occurrence and from the bare reading of FIR, one could easily smell, that the same has been lodged after cooking up a false story and accused/petitioner has been fixed in crime after deliberation/ consultation. Per submission of learned counsel the petitioner/accused is entitled for concession of bail, as his case is one of the further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
7. On the other hand learned Dy. A.G, contended that a large quantity of contraband and prohibited arms/ammunition has been recovered from the house of petitioner and more over, there is no ill will or enmoisty between the present petitioner/accused and Police which may have been the reason for his false involvement, in the instant case and more so such a large quantity of arms/ammunition can be planted falsely.
8. After hearing the parties and perusing the case, it appears that the raid was conducted on Spy information and sufficient time was available with the raiding party to associate two respectable persons of the locality to join the proceeding. Now it is admitted facts that people do hesitate to come forward and do not want to poke their nose in the affairs of other in such like cases, which may later on have dire impact and threat to their own as well as their relatives but at the same time it is not necessary that the persons must be resident of a close vicinity, the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. For that purpose could be liberally interpreted and scope of locality could be widended. The criterion is "respectability" which is a prime consideration and locality does not mean the people living at close proximity and it may verify from, case to case. Another aspect of the case is that as per FIR the occurrence took place on 26/01/16 at 1300 hrs, and the report was lodged on the same day at 1400 hrs, but it does not reflect that the accused was present in the house from where the alleged recovery was effected who was arrested on the following day of the occurrence. The contention of the learned counsel that the accused was living with his other brother in a house jointly' owned by the family members including his parents is a factor, which could not be answered at bail stage and the same is left to be determined by the trial Court.
Presence of independent witnesses, a legal necessity and while carrying out a search the association of two respectable and reliable persons to prove search and recovery, which was necessarily required to prove recovery of any incriminating articles which itself was an offence if violated, the accused will reap the benefit of the same even at bail stage. Now the law is almost all settled that "Law is to be stretched in favour for accused and not in favour of prosecution even for limited purpose of bail".
9. The recoveries were effected in absence of accused. His capability in the crime and its ultimate Quantam of sentence are the question, which could be answered after recording of evidence in the trial Court, bringing the case within ambit of further inquiry. Bail cannot be refused to an accused when a reasonable slightest doubt lurk in the mind of the Court regarding involvement of the accused in commission of a crime.
10. In view of above the case of the petitioner is one of the further inquiry and he is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of a bail bonds of Rs, 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.