' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J. --- By means of instant petition filed under Section 497 Cr.P.C. Moazzam Din Butt and Muneeb Butt (petitioners) have sought for their post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 221, dated 29.03.2016, offence under Sections 452, 447, 380, 148, 149, PPC, registered with Police Station, Peoples Colony, Gujranwala.
2. Allegation against the petitioners, in brief, as per contents of the crime report is that on 07.02.2016 at 1:00 p.m. They along with their co-accused while armed with their respective weapons trespassed into the house of the complainant, ousted the inmates of the house on gunpoint and besides committing theft of household articles including cash forcibly took illegal possession of the house.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits 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 there is delay of more than one and half month in lodging the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. It is submitted that the petitioners took possession of the house in question in pursuance of agreement (Annexure-D) arrived at between the parties. It is contended that civil litigation is pending adjudication between the parties qua the house in question. While referring affidavit sworn by Mst.
Fakhra, one of the co-sharer in the house, learned counsel submits that no such occurrence has taken place. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioners have made out a good case for the grant of relief prayed for by means of instant petition.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition with vehemence. It is argued that the petitioners are named in the crime report with specific allegation. It is submitted that the cheque worth Rs, 600,000/- issued to the complainant party was dishonoured. Learned counsel submits that civil suit was filed by petitioner No, 1 on 20.02.2016 whereas the occurrence took place on 07.02.2016, which itself shows male fides on their part. It is contended that some of the stolen articles have been recovered from the petitioners. It is argued that the petitioners have been found guilty by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation; therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for.
5. Arguments advanced from both sides have been heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioners are named in the crime report lodged at the instance of the complainant. There is specific allegation against the petitioners that they along with their co-accused while armed with their respective weapons trespassed into the house of the complainant, ousted the inmates of the house on gun point and besides committing theft of household articles including cash forcibly took illegal possession of the house in question. The petitioners along with their co-accused have shown highhandedness during the occurrence in violation of Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The PWs have fully implicated the petitioners with the crime alleged.
When confronted, the Investigating Officer present before the Court states that the petitioners committed the occurrence in the way as mentioned in the crime report and during the course of investigation certain articles have also been recovered from the petitioners and as such they have been found guilty. Even the cheque issued qua payment of the remaining amount of Rs, 600,000/- to the complainant " party was dishonoured on *presentation due to insufficient funds. Moreover, the occurrence in the instant case has taken place on 07.02.2016 whereas the civil suit was filed by petitioner No, 1 afterwards on 20.02.2016. Admittedly the agreement was arrived at between three' sisters namely Sumera, Javeria and Fakhra with petitioner No, 1 and the cheque in question was also issued in their favor. In such circumstances, the evidentiary value of affidavit of Mst. Fakhra would be determined by the learned Trial Court during trial after recording of prosecution evidence. Sufficient incriminating material is available on the record to connect the petitioners with the commission of the offence alleged against them. It is a settled principle of law that while disposing of bail applications the Courts are supposed to make tentative assessment of the material available on the record and deeper appreciation of evidence/material available on the record is always deprecated by the Superior Courts while adjudicating the ancillary mattes like bail applications.
7. For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. Therefore, the instant bail petition having no merits is hereby dismissed.