' Aamer Yousaf, complainant has laid challenge to the order of the Additional Sessions judge, Gujranwala, dated 20-4-2001 whereby he allowed post-arrest bail to respondent No,1 in a Criminal case vide F.I.R. No,373 registered with Police Station Saddar Gujranwala on 28-9-2000 under section 395, P.P.C.
2. The allegation contained in the First Information Report is that while Saleem Masih was driving the car containing huge amount of cash prize bond, travellor cheque and other amounts on behalf of his employer he was intercepted on the Highway by another car from which six persons emerged and looted the said amounts and they had hardly covered some distance when the police rounded them up and got recovered the amounts as well as the weapon of offence.
Respondent No,1 was one of those dacoits from whom looted amounts as well as .30 bore Pistol was recovered.
3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala was impressed with the concession made by another passenger of the car from which the amount was looted that respondent No,1 was not present at the time of occurrence as he was not apprehended and nothing was recovered from him. Further, he was made to sign the blank papers.
4. Learned counsel contends that such witnesses can easily be procured, however, he was not the only witness of occurrence; there were other witnesses namely Saleem Masih and the police officials including Shafqat Rasheed Inspector/S.H.O. Who apprehended the petitioner and recovered the amount and fire-arm, therefore, one witness having resiled from his statement does not make out a case of further inquiry particularly when the offence is that of dacoity and the dacoits having armed with deadly weapon looted the huge amount.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 insists that the concession made by Liaqat Ali made out a case of further inquiry and the discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala was proper.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has submitted that it was a serious offence for which concession of bail should not have been extended particularly when the challan was submitted in the Court and the trial was about to commence.
7. I have attended to the arguments of the respective counsels and have gone through the record.
8. I see eye to eye with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant that Liaqat Ali was a passenger who subsequently boarded the car and, therefore, had no nexus either with the employer or driver and as a matter of grace he was allowed to accompany them, therefore, such witnesses could have been won over at any time, this is exactly what has happened. Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not probe into the matter a bit deeply so as to ascertain as to why Liaqat Ali resiled from his statement in the presence of the statement of other eye-witnesses connecting the respondent with the commission of offence, it was not a proper discretion exercised by him. Resultantly the by. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, vide his order, dated 20-4-2001 is recalled and cancelled. Respondent shall be taken in custody to face his trial. Application succeeds.
Bail cancelled.