Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2635/1 of 1984, decided on 13th January, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Occurrence allegedly having taken place while complainant was travelling in train‑‑F.I.R. lodged with Railway Police‑‑Subsequently another F.I.R. about same occurrence lodged with District Police‑‑Versions in two F.I.Rs. running counter to each other‑‑Railway Police having recovered tape‑recorder from one of accused but not shown to complainant‑‑According to investigation conducted by Railway Police snatching of golden locket was found to be incorrect‑‑Another tape‑recorder having been recovered by District Police was identified by complainant‑‑Second F.I.R. held was lodged either to screen offenders which were apprehended by Railway Police or complainant was liar‑‑Prima facie one of two investigations was dishonest and case found to be a fit case for grant of‑bail‑‑Bail granted to accused.

Shah Ahmad Khan Baluch for Petitioner No. 1.

Sardar Anwar Ahmad Khan for Petitioner No. 2.

M. Aslam Malik for the State.

Vide F.I.R. No. 12 recorded by the Railway Police, Jaranwala, a case under the provisions of section 17, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against the petitioner and two others.

2. Precisely, in the F.I.R. it was stated by the complainant that while he was travelling in a train, some unknown persons had committed crime as a result of which, he was deprived of a tape‑recorder‑cum‑radio and it was also alleged that a golden locket, which was worn by Mst. Azhra, daughter‑in‑law of the complainant was also snatched. .

3. During the investigation of the case, the petitioner (Abdul Sattar), Nausher and Abbas were arrested and an identification parade was also conducted in which, Abdul Sattar and Abbas were identified by the complainant and other witnesses. Nausher and Abbas co‑accused of the petitioner were allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.

4. While hearing the application of Abdul Sattar I noticed that Nausher and Abbas did not deserve the concession of bail and accordingly I issued suo motu notice to them to show cause as to why the bail granted to them should not be cancelled.

5. Abbas has appeared through Sardar Anwar Ahmad Khan, Advocate, while Nausher is absent. In the course of the hearing of this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a photostat copy of another F.I.R. before me, which was lodged by the complainant with the Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad with regard to the same occurrence. In the second F.I.R. which was recorded on 7‑1‑1985, the complainant Muhammad Sharif has given a version which runs counter to the earlier version as narrated with the Railway Police. According to the investigation of the case conducted by the Railway Police the tape‑recorder was got recovered from Nausher while the snatching of the golden locket from the neck of Mst. Azhra, was found to be incorrect. According to the second F.I.R. the complainant has A identified his tape‑recorder‑cum‑radio lying with C.I.A. Police at Faisalabad. In this F.I.R. the complainant has further stated that he had identified Abdul Sattar and Abbas at the instance of one unknown person. The complainant has further stated that he was not shown his tape‑recorder‑cum‑radio by Railway Police. Obviously, the second F.I.R. has been lodged either to screen the offenders which were apprehended by Railway Police or the complainant is a liar.

6. Without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party, I am of the view that it is a fit case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000 with one, surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner Faisalabad.

7. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, a copy of this order shall be sent to the Inspector‑General of Police Punjab and also the Inspector‑General Railway Police so as to apprise them of the nature of investigation being carried in their respective departments with regard to the same occurrence, because prima facie one of the investigations is dishonest. Both, the Inspector‑General of Police Punjab and Inspector‑General of Railway Police shall take such necessary action, as it may be deemed fit.

S.A. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.