Muhammad Manal Khalil VS The State etc.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl.Misc.No.702-B of 2024 Muhammad Manal Khalil Versus The State and another

S. No. of order / Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where proceedings Proceedings necessary.

25.04.2024 Ms. Abida Farooq, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Muhammad Ali, learned State Counsel with Manzoor, S.I.

Ch. Muhammad Shafqaat, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant

Through the instant criminal miscellaneous petition the petitioner, Muhammad Manal Khalil S/o Muhammad Khalil, seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.1089, dated 05.12.2023 for offence under Sections 457,380 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C.”) registered at Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad.

2.Earlier the petitioner's post-arrest bail petitions were dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section-30 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad vide orders dated 14.02.2024 and 30.03.2024, respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant petition for post-arrest bail.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. but was implicated through the complainant’s supplementary statement; that the petitioner is innocent and has been roped into the matter by the local police with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that no specific role has been ascribed to the petitioner as per contents of the F.I.R.; that during the investigation, nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; that recovery, if any, has been planted by the police; that the offences with which the petitioner has been charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of

Section 497 Cr.P.C.; that the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C.; and that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest and is no longer required by the police for investigation. Learned counsel prayed for the petition to be allowed and for the petitioner to be released on bail.

4.On the other hand, the learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition by stating that although the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. but was found involved in the commission of alleged crime when the CCTV footage of the incident was seen; that CDR also confirms the location of the petitioner at the spot; that besides the amount in Rupees as well as US dollars, different stolen gold ornaments were recovered from the petitioner, which were identified by the complainant; and that the partial recovery of the stolen amount as well as the ornaments from the petitioner disentitles him for the discretionary relief of post-arrest bail. Learned counsel prayed for the bail petition to be dismissed.

5.I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.

6.Brief facts as stated in the F.I.R. are that on 02.12.2023 at about 06:30 p.m., the complainant namely, Gulnaz Khan D/o Muhammad Ashraf Khan, resident of House No.279, Street No.7, Sector F-/10-3, Islamabad locked her house and went to her aunt’s house. She returned to her home at night and went to sleep. The next morning when she woke-up, she found out that her cash was missing. When she became suspicious, she further checked her belongings and as a result the items including gold and diamond ornaments etc. besides cash were missing. Upon this, the F.I.R. in question has been registered against the

unknown persons and she made a request that all her stolen items be recovered.

7.Admittedly, the F.I.R. in question was registered against the unknown persons. The petitioner was nominated in this case on the basis of a supplementary statement made by the complainant. Indeed, the petitioner was implicated in the case after the CCTV footage of the incident was seen. On 06.12.2023, the petitioner was arrested by the local police. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner disclosed that he along with his brother namely, Asim Khalil and Rana Usman committed robbery at the complainant’s house and sold the stolen items. Furthermore, the petitioner also disclosed that the petitioner had been committing robberies and theft since the last two years. Two boys namely, Asim Khalil and Usama Khalil worked with the petitioner. One Imad called the petitioner to do some welding work for the solar shed in a house at Sector F- 10/3. According to the petitioner, he worked at the complainant’s house last Ramadan. The complainant then asked the petitioner to construct a gate and swimming pool. All this prima facie shows that the petitioner had already worked in the complainant’s house and after that he made a plan with co-accused to commit robbery in her house.

8.It evinces from the record that partial recovery of the stolen amount (i.e. Pakistani Rupees & Dollars), jewelry were recovered on the pointation of the petitioner, the details whereof are as follows:- S. Stolen cash/jewelry item recovered Recovery No. memo dated

1.Rs.40,000/- 26.12.2023

2.(i) 100 Dollars (ii) Two rings in numbers 29.12.2023 (Diamond & Feroze) (iii) Diamond Rings (three in number) and (iv) One necklace of Diamond

3.(i) Two rings in number (ii) Two small tops 01.01.2024 (iii) Two large earrings and (iv) One small earring

4.Rs.400,000/- 02.01.2024

5.Rs.5,50,000/- 04.01.2024

9.According to the record, a total amount of Rs. 41,90,000/, 100 US Dollars and stolen jewelry items were recovered from the petitioner as well as co-accused, which had been duly identified by the complainant. The recovered amount as well as jewelry items had also been given to the complainant on superdari vide order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Islamabad (West). According to the CDR (CDR proforma dated 05.12.2023 appended with the record) of the mobile number of the petitioner, the location was found at the crime scene i.e. the complainant’s house. Recovery of the stolen money as well as the jewelry suggests that the petitioner is involved in the alleged crime and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed a non-bailable offence. At bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made and nothing has been brought on record to show any ill will or mala fide on the part of the complainant.

10.The petitioner was arrested on 06.12.2023. He was sent to the judicial lock-up on 08.01.2024. The challan has been submitted on 14.01.2024 but the charge has not been framed as yet.

11.Given the heinous nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the fact that the recoveries having been made from him, I am not inclined to accept this bail petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to frame the charge on the next date of hearing, and shall conclude the trial at the earliest. Needless to observe that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature and shall not influence the learned Trial Court in giving its decision at the conclusion of the case.

(MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB)

Qamar Khan* JUDGE