' This petition under sections 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. Has been filed by Riazul Hassan and 4 others for grant of bail to them in a case registered vide F.I.R. 599/88 dated 11-12-1988 with Police Station Muridke, District Sheikhupura under Article 17 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979) and section 342/395/458, P.P.C. On the complaint of one Ghulam Muhammad son of Khair Din.
2. According to the contents of the F.I.R. The complainant who is a Chowkidar in New National Tanneries Limited, Khori during the night between the 10th and 11th of December, 1988 was on duty when at about 12-00 mid night seven persons climbed the wall of the factory, reached the complainant and the other person sitting with him namely Liaqat Ali, duly covered with Chaddars three of whom were armed with guns, one with a sten-gun, one with revolver and the other with a carbine. It is alleged that after search of the complainant the trespassers took Rs,575 from him.
Then they gave him a beating and under fear he told them about the keys of the factory and went inside the factory locking him and Liaqat in a room and posted one man as guard on them. The said persons allegedly opened the door of the factory, brought in a tractor trolley and after about 1-1/2 hours the said tractor-trolly left the factory. Sometime thereafter the person posted as guard at the complainant and Liaqat also allegedly left. When the matter was reported to the police, it was also found that leather worth Rs,16 Lakhs was also removed by the aforementioned seven trespassers.
3. The petitioners were later arrested and were identified as the accused persons who committed the offence. The petitioners after their arrest moved an application for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. The bail was, however, refused to them by order dated 14th of March, 1989, whereupon the petitioners presented the present bail application in this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been involved in the case on account of enmity and political rivalry due to elections and labour union activities.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that the case against the petitioners stands falsified on account of the affidavits filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge by six of the witnesses of the prosecution who not only filed the affidavits but also admitted the correctness thereof when they were called upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in that connection.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that besides the six witnesses who had filed their affidavits in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to falsify the correctness of the case against the accused there are three more affidavits filed in this Court as well one each by Arshad Ali and Rafaqat Ali whereby the recovery from the accused stands demolished and the third is deposed by Liaqat Ali whereby the identification of the accused persons stand completely falsified as all the witnesses of identification have now deposed through the affidavits that the accused persons were shown in the police station to them before the identification was carried out in jail.
7. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that not only the recovery and identification witnesses have falsified the prosecution story as contained in the F.I.R. But the complainant himself has through an affidavit which was also verified by him before the learned Additional Sessions Judge by personal appearance categorically stated that he was made to sign certain papers which were not read over to him and that no occurrence as depicted in the F.I.R.
Took place. Continuing his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that the statement of the complainant recorded before the Magistrate was also under duress and pressure as deposed by him in the affidavit and that the said complainant according to his own affidavit had not lodged any report with the police.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the context of his above submission cited Rehmat Ali and another v. The State reported as 1979 SCMR 30 and Allah Bakhsh v. Nazar Hussain Shah and another reported as 1979 SCMR 137 to contend that in similar situations it was held that the case becomes of further inquiry and the accused are, thcrefore, entitled to be released on bail.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the State could urge nothing to controvert the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. He was, however, asked as to whether the challan has been submitted in the Court to which he replied that according to the instructions imparted by the A.S.I.
Present the challan has been submitted only on 4th of May, 1989. When further asked about this belated submission of challan after about six months he stated that it was to be decided by the prosecution as to whether the case is to go to Speedy Trial Court or to the ordinary criminal Court.
10. The A.S.I. Present was asked about the stage of the case after the submission of the challan and whether the Court has taken due congizance of the matter, the A.S.I. Was wholly ignorant of the stage of the case.
11. This manner of investigation and dealing with the challans with inordinate delay in their submission and keeping the accused persons incarcerated for indefinite period can obviously be not seen with approval. The neglect of the prosecution in submitting the challan expeditiously by itself can be a ground for grant of bail especially when it is not known to the Investigating Officer and nothing has been urged on behalf of the State as to when the trial may commence.
12. Apart altogether from the above position and without commenting on evidentiary worth of the affidavits filed by nine prosecution witnesses, six of whom including the complainant have by personal appearance before the Additional Sessions Judge verified the correctness of the said affidavits, the filing thereof does make a case of further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Ai.J the case becomes one fit for grant of bail. The above view follows the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan referred to above especially the one reported as 1979 SCMR 30.
13. The result of the above discussion is that allowing this petition I would grant bail to the petitioners in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura.