1. ' The case against the applicant has been challaned in the Court for an offence under section 411, P.
2. P. C. Initially the case was registered under section 409, P. P. C. And the F. I. R. Drawn mentioning therein, that the applicant was suspected to have had a link with the late H. C. Liaquat Ali, who had committed suicide by shooting himself. There was a letter secured by the police, written by the applicant, to the late Liaquat Ali, contents whereof had strangthened the suspicion of the police against the applicant. In order to determine the motive of the suicide, checking of the store was conducted to know, from where the ammunition was taken out and used on himself by the late H.
3. C. Liaquat Ali. This checking was carried out from 30-7-76 to 31-7-76. As a result of the checking, shortage of ammunition was detected, details whereof are, that Ball ammunition of 103 rifles were of 2834 rounds and of '13 bore revolver, were four rounds and '12 bore cartridges were, of 19 rounds and fire cases of 303 balls were of 18 cases.
4. ' The applicant was arrested on 20-1-1977 from the Bus Stand Pathan Colony, Hyderabad. From his personal search, among other things, '49 rounds of live cartridges of 103 rifle, were secured. Since no evidence was available of direct involvement of the applicant, for an offence under section 409, charge-sheet under section 411, P. P. C. Was submitted, which was finally accepted by the Court on 14.2-1977.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the maximum sentence for the offence under section 411, P. P. C. Is three years. The investigation is complete. The applicant is not required by the police. The offence is not punishable with death or transportation for life. The learned counsel has relied upon the case of Ghulam Yaseen (1) and 1968 SCM R 1085.
6. On the other hand, the learned A. A. G. Mr. A. H. Lakho has opposed,A the bail and has placed reliance on the case reported in 1973 P Cr. L J 1009, wherein the offences alleged were under section 395 and the facts were of a different nature from that of the instant case. Under the circumstances, I would allow bail to the applicant on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with P. R.
7. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. Petition allowed.
(1) 1968 SCMR 1308 1978 P Cr. I. J 285 [Lahore] Before Malik Saeed Hassan, J KARAM-Petitioner versus AHMADU AND 5 Trims-Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2349/8 of 1977, decided on 9th July 1977.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- - S. 497(5)-Bail-Cancellation of-Positive finding of two Senior Police Officers regarding innocence of accused-No error found in enlarging accused on bail-Application for cancellation of bail dismissed. [p. 287]A et seq Rehmatullah v. State 1970 SCMR 299 not applicable,
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -- Ss. 497 & 498-Bail-Accused involved in commission of heinous crime-Grounds urged for grant of bail : (I) accused mentioned only in general way, (ii) absence of recoveries, and (iii) lapse of more than six months in general way, since arrest of accused-Held, no grounds for grant of bail. [p.
9. 287)B et seq Inayatullah Cheema for Petitioner. R. A. Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing : 9th July 1977.
10. ' Saifullah S. I. Of Police Station, Bhagatanwala, Tehsil and District Sargodha, is present with records, and has stated that the Addl. S. P. And S. P., Sargodha, did find the respondents/accused, after thorough investigation, to be innocent.
2. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the challan has not so far been put in the Court, though more than six months have elapsed since the arrest of the applicants. (This is in error). Allah Yar, respondent has not been served. The third investigating officer, namely, A. D. I.-G., however, had recommended that the accused may be sent for trial and be left to the discretion of the Court, and therefore, all the accused persons have been challaned under sections 307, 325, 148, 149, P. P. C. Wherein it is, inter alia, alleged that the accused caused injuries to Muhammad Khan, who, according to the Sub-inspector appearing before this Court, received 18 injuries by blunt weapons (in fact the injuries are more than 18). The learned counsel for the accused/respondents is a counsel in this application as well as in Cr. Misc. No. 2350-B of 1977 wherein nine accused of this case are respondents and in Cr. Misc. No. 2294-B of 1977 for the grant of bail to Dost Muhammad, Manik, Noor, and Malka accused in the same case. This judgment will dispose of all the above- mentioned Cr, Miscellaneous applications.
3. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on Rehmatullah v. State (1) wherein it was opined that if an Investigating Officer finds an accused person to be innocent, it is a circumstance that may affect veracity of the prosecution case. However, at page 789 of the above report, in the case of Amir Khan v. State, in which interim bail order was recalled by the High Court on the ground of wilful suppression of facts by the applicant ; it is further held that if one of the police officers (whereas all others had found him guilty) had found the applicant to be innocent, it will not bring his case within the ambit of section 497 (2), Cr. P. C. In the present case of attempt to murder etc. There is no allegation of suppression on the part of the accused. Two Investigating Officers, positively found the accused to be innocent (though the applicant has alleged enmity with the S. P.) and the third opined that matter may be left to the discretion of the Court. In Cr.
11. Appeal No. 579 of 1976, decided on 9th July, 1976 by the Supreme Court, the Investigating Officer found the accused to be guilty. S. P. (City), Lahore, expressed the view that he was morally convinced of the innocence of the accused : Since some, persons had appeared before him to prove alibi of the accused. Supreme Court held that above circumstance was not sufficient to place the names of the accused persons in Column No. 2 and to attract the provisions of section 497 (2), Cr. P. C. The ratio decidendi has no bearing in {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1970 SCM R 299 {{FOOT NOTE}} 287 the present case. Here is a positive finding of the two senior police officer regarding the innocence of the accused. The doctrine of alibi, being a special A plea, not initially establishing the innocence of the accused ; and a mere "mora conviction" of the S. P. Is not applicable here.
12. It is, therefore, held, that in the present case there is no error in enlarging the accused on bail. This petition/application is, therefore, dismissed. Cr. Misc. No. 2350-B of 1977 is also dismissed.
4. However, in Cr. Misc. No. 2394-B of 1977, there is no finding of innocence (regarding the accused/petitioner) on the part of any Investigating Officer. The applicants are involved in the commission of a heinous crime. The learned counsel contends that since these accused are mentioned only in a general way, viz., all accused caused injuries, and there are no recoveries, and more than six months have passed since the arrest of the accused ; latter may B be allowed bail.
13. The above are not grounds for the grant of bail. Thi application is dismissed.