PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 244
Present: James Joseph, J.
MUHAMMAD IMRAN, etc.--Petitioners
Crl. Misc. No. 11237-B of 2014, decided on 19.9.2014.
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 381-A & 411--Bail, grant of--Further inquiry--There was a delay of eight days in lodging of FIR which has not been explained--Allegedly petitioners were not nominated in FIR nor there was any direct evidence against them--They were involved in the present case on the basis of supplementary statement made by complainant--Evidentiary value of such kind of supplementary statement shall be adjudged by trial Court after recording of evidence--A joint recovery of stolen property has been shown to be effected on pointation of petitioners and co-accused--Co-accused has already been released on bail by Court of Additional Sessions Judge--Same has not been assailed by complainant at any forum--Offences with which petitioners were charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., grant of bail in such kind of cases is a rule and its refusal is an exception--Investigation qua petitioners was complete and challan has been submitted before trial Court where trial has not been commenced so-far--They were stated to be non convicts and no useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind bars for an indefinite period--Matter required further inquiry into guilt of petitioners as contemplated u/S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.--Petition was allowed. [P. 245] A
Mr. A.D. Bhatti, Advocate for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 19.9.2014.
Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Asif petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 114/2014 dated 17.5.2014 for offences under Sections 381-A/411 PPC registered at P.S. sadder Kamalia District Toba TekSingh.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the complainant on the intervening night between 08/09-05-2014 parked his tractor on the farm of Malik Sarif and when he woke up in the morning, he found his tractor missing.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. There is a delay of eight (08) days in lodging of the FIR which has not been explained. Allegedly the petitioners are not nominated in the FIR nor there is any direct evidence against them. They were involved in the present case on the basis of supplementary statement made by the complainant on 27.05.2014. The evidentiary value of such kind of supplementary statement shall be adjudged by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. A joint recovery of stolen property has been shown to be effected on the pointation of petitioners and one Anser Abbas. Co-accused Anser Abbas has already been released on bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Kamalia vide order dated 05.07.2014. The same has not been assailed by the complainant at any forum. The offences with which the petitioners are charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. grant of bail in such kind of cases is a rule and its refusal is an exception. Investigation qua the petitioners is complete and challan has been submitted before the trial Court where the trial has not been commenced so-far. They are stated to be non convicts and no useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars for an indefinite period.
5. In view of the above, the matter requires further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners as contemplated under Section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioners are
admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing ball bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees on lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The observations made above are tentative in nature.
(A.S.) Bail allowed