' Tahir Mahmood alias Tari seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,246 of 1998 with Police Station Samanabad, Lahore on 12-11-1998 under section 392, P.P.C.
2. Allegation contained in the first information report authored by one Khalid Javed is that on 12-11- 1998 while closing his shop he carried a bag containing four hundred thousands of rupees and proceeded towards his house when in the way his car was stopped by three robbers going on a motorcycle who by force snatched the bag and made good their escape.
3. Descriptions of the robbers were given in the F.I.R. Later on, through a supplementary statement recorded on the very next day, first informant took a summersault and gave the complete names and addresses of the miscripants stating that he personally knew them, resultantly, present petitioner alongwith others were arrested. After interrogation petitioner led to the recovery of two hundred thousands rupees. While doing so he further got recovered Rs,70,000 stating that Rs,35000 was the looted money of a similar incident committed by him within the vicinity of Police Station Garden Town, Lahore and the remaining amount of Rs,35,000 was yet another amount of looted money obtained through dacoity in an incidence within the precincts of Lower Mall Area, Lahore falling within the beat of Race Course Police Station.
4. Learned counsel contends that it is well nigh impossible that on 12-11-1998 the date when the first informant was allegedly robbed, he did not know the culprits and on the very next day he came to know not only their names but also their parentage and addresses. He went on to state that all this concoction was done with the active help of the police. As far as the recovery of the money is concerned which was effected on 5-8-2000, learned counsel has ridiculed the Investigation Agency by stating that such ludicrous piece of evidence cannot be believed by any sane person as no robber will keep the amount for more than 1-1/2 years. He prayed for grant of bail particularly in absence of any identification parade. Conversely, learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail by stating that not only the looted money in the present case was recovered from the petitioner but an additional amount of Rs,70,000 was also recovered which constituted the looted amount of burglary committed in New Garden Town, Lahore and Upper Mall, therefore, the discretion should not be exercised in favour of the petitioner as he is a hardened criminal.
5. I have heard the arguments of the respective counsel with care and have also perused the record.
6. Our Police has found a novel method of involving the persons particularly in the case of dacoities and robberies; instead of holding the identification parades they get the supplementary statements recorded from the complainant on the same day or on the very next day for which the culprits are got named by him. Instead of making the culprits culpable, in this manner, doubts are cast about the veracity of such supplementary statements. I have, in detail, deprecated this practice and copy of my order was sent to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab and all the Deputy Inspectors-General of Police in the Province of Punjab earnestly hoping that the practice of recording the supplementary statements as substitutes for identification parade would be done away with. It seems that the directions have not been complied with as a result the crime rate has increased because the culprits are allowed bail in suchlike cases, as no Court is to give credence or authenticity to such-like supplementary statements. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has taken pains to point out that Rs,70,000 was recovered on the admission of the petitioner after committing daocity elsewhere but I fail to understand that he did not apply his mind that mere confession of the accused is inadmissible in evidence unless recovery is made in consequence thereof. Learned counsel has rightly stressed with vehemence that the co-accused of the petitioner (M. Mumtaz) was allowed bail on 26-6-1999, therefore, facility of bail should not be denied to the petitioner on the principle of consistency. The upshot of the discussion is that the petitioner's application is accepted and he is allowed bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.
7. A copy of my order shall be sent by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore who shall see for himself the efficiency of Police belonging to the Samanabad Police who did not make any efforts to get in contact with either the Garden Town or Race Course Police so as to obtain information whether any dacoity was committed in the referred to police stations as confessed by the petitioner and if so, his person should have been passed to the said police stations for commencement of investigations, if any F.I.R. Was filed with the said police stations. The police official in attendance has said that no further step was taken by Incharge of his police station after the admission made by the petitioner. S.S.P., Lahore shall probe into the matter and submit his report to the D.R. Judicial of this Court within one month.