Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner, namely Saifullah seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR No.444 of 2017, dated 17.07.2017 registered at Police Station Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh, in respect of offences under Sections 397 and 412, PPC.
2. The allegation against the petitioner namely Saifullah, as culled from the evidentiary material available before the Court, is that he alongwith other co-accused committed dacoity and snatched away Rs. 1,70,98,877/-.
3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. As is evident from the perusal of the record that the petitioner namely Saif Ullah was not named in the FIR. Then, on 15.03.2018, supplementary statements of the complainant, namely Muhammad Ahmad Raoof and witnesses namely Muhammad Shafique and Khalil Ahmad were recorded to the effect that they had been searching for the accused and discovered that the petitioner was involved in the occurrence. This delayed involvement of the petitioner by the complainant and the witnesses makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry and probe. The witnesses have not mentioned in their statements the source through which, they identified the petitioner so as to be involved in the occurrence. The absence of the source of identification of the petitioner in the statements of the witnesses also shows that the petitioner has been involved in the case only on the basis of suspicion. Mere suspicion however strong, can never be taken as proof. The absence of the source of identity of the petitioner is conspicuous by its absence. The petitioner, was arrested on 20.05.2018 and during the investigation of the case, on 01.06.2018, the petitioner allegedly led to the recovery of Rs. 19,500/- which were produced by his relative Muhammad Iqbal at the Police Station. The above mentioned recovery was witnessed by Naeemullah 1488/HC and Sajjad Hussain 361/C (witnesses who attested the recovery memo). I have noticed that despite having previous knowledge, no effort was made by the Investigating Officer to procure attendance of independent witnesses of the locality so as to witness the said recovery. Furthermore, I have also noticed that after the said recovery, neither the complainant nor his witnesses identified the recovered amount as being owned by bank of the complainant and no memo of identification regarding the said recovery was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Daring the investigation of the case no effort was made by the Investigating Officer to ascertain that the recovered amount was indeed the stolen property. During the investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer did not get the identity of the present petitioner verified by the complainant and the eye witnesses by holding of a test identification parade which was imperative in this case. Tentatively assessing the material on record, the case of the petitioner would call for further enquiry and he deserves his release on bail. I am of the tentative view, that there exists a possibility of further inquiry and probe of the evidentiary material on record to ascertain that the petitioner participated in the alleged occurrence. The need of further probe of evidentiary material, as mentioned, brings the case of the petitioner within the domain of further inquiry as envisaged in Section 497(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which can only be undertaken by the trial Court and reasonable grounds do not exist to believe that the petitioner has committed the offences under Sections 397 and 412, PPC. Mere involvement in a heinous offence is no ground for refusing bail to an accused who otherwise becomes entitled for the concession of bail. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 20.05.2018 and since then he is behind the bars. He is previous non-convict, investigation qua him is complete, his person is no more required for further investigation, therefore, his continued incarceration would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
The learned Deputy Prosecutor General and the learned counsel for the complainant stated that the petitioner is involved in other cases of the same nature, however, conceded that the petitioner has not been convicted.
Mere registration of cases without conviction in any of them cannot be deemed sufficient to label a person as a dangerous or a habitual criminal entailing dismissal of petition. Reliance is placed on case of Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan vs. The State (2012 SCMR 573) wherein it has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan as under: "The argument that the petitioner has been involved in two other cases of similar nature would not come in the way of grant of petition so long as there is nothing on the record to show that he has been convicted in any one of them."
5. For the foregoing reasons the petition in hand is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand Only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. Needless to mention that any observations made in the above order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court. Additionally a direction is issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the petitioner expeditiously , preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of this order . It is made clear that if the petitioner or any person acting on their behalf causes delay in the conclusion of the trial then the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner in accordance with law .