Mushtaq Ahmad petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.190 registered at Police Station City, Hasilpur for an offence under sections 392/411, P.P.C.
2. The instant case was registered on the written statement of Muhammad Iqbal, Ranger, Officer Forest Department, Hasilpur. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he knew that the complainant carried Rs.90,000 (pay of employees) with him, therefore, the petitioner gave company to the complainant for some time. It is further stated that when the complainant was on his way to his house a motorcycle crossed him and subsequently two persons alighted from the motorcycle, caught hold of the complainant and threatened him of life and snatched Rs.90,000 from the complainant. It is further stated in the F.I.R. That 3rd accused who remained riding on the motorcycle alongwith two other accused tried to escape from the scene of occurrence. However, the complainant raised alarm and started chasing the motorcycle. Incidentally, the motorcycle slipped and in the meanwhile the P.Ws reached the scene of occurrence. The accuses left the motorcycle and rats towards different directions, however, one of the accused namely Muhammad Azeem was apprehended at the spot. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. That the apprehended accused informed the complainant that he was sent by Babar Ali-- accused. It is further stated that Babar Ali had handed over his Motorcycle Registered No.6363-VRE to the accused. The complainant produced motorcycle, a carbine, the cartridges and the apprehended accused before the police officer at the time of registration of case.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 9-6-2002 and allegedly led to the recovery of Rs.60,000 cash from his house on 12-6-2002.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
5. According to F.I.R., the name of the petitioner was disclosed to the complainant by Muhammad Azeem co-accused. After arrest of the petitioner, no test identification parade was held. No incriminating evidence except that of factum of recovery is available against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State has tried to argue that the petitioner had confessed his guilt before the police officers, which, I am afraid, is prima facie, of no avail, as the same is inadmissible in evidence in accordance with Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The allegation qua the petitioner vis-a-vis section 392, P.P.C. Needs further probe and inquiry, while section 411, P.P.C. Does not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not a previous convict. In these circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.