ORDER SHEET.

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
Crl. Misc. No. 1402 of 2021
Gull Khan
Versus
THE STATE, etc.

S. No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or
proceedings proceedings counsel where necessary.
10.01.2022 Mr. Usman Ullah Khan Yousafzai, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Mr. Daniyal Hassan, State Counsel.
Mr. Habib Ullah, A.S.I.
.

Through the instant petition, the

Petitioner (Gull Khan) is seeking post-arrest bail

in FIR No. 570/2021, dated 02.08.2021, offence

under Section 381-A PPC registered with Police

Station I-9, Islamabad. However, Sections 411,

468, 471 and 420 PPC were added

subsequently on 12.09.2021 & 23.09.2021,

through Zimni Nos. 13 &17, respectively.

2. The facts in brief are that Complainant [Ali

Muhammad son of Shakeel Ahmed Malik]

reported the matter to the police that on

31.07.2021, at about 09:30 p.m. he parked his

silver colored Toyota Corolla GLI Vehicle,

Registration No.AWQ-309, Model 2011, Engine

No.W-44732 and Chassis No.NZE.140.2120661

outside Haroon Plaza, IJP Road, Islamabad, and

that when the Complainant came back at about

06:30 a.m., the subject vehicle was found

missing. The CCTV camera footage installed in

the plaza revealed that at about 03:30 a.m. two

 Pa g e |2
Crl. Misc. No. 1402/2021

persons, who came on a motorcycle, stole the

subject vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner

submitted that the F.I.R. was registered against

unknown thieves and there is no evidence

which could connect the accused/petitioner

with the commission of offence; that the alleged

recovery of the vehicle bearing registration

No.AWQ-309 is fake; that the offence does not

fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497

Cr.P.C; that the case is one of further inquiry as

there is no corroborating evidence against the

Petitioner/accused of commission of the alleged

offence; that the investigation has been

completed yet no challan has been submitted

whereas he has been behind bars for 6(six)

months; and that the petitioner is ready to

furnish solvent surety to the satisfaction of the

Court, therefore, may be admitted to bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel

controverted the arguments of the learned

counsel for the petitioner and submitted, on the

basis of progress report, that the Petitioner

during physical remand in another case i.e.

F.I.R. No.411/2021 dated 08.09.2021 for

offences under Sections 413, 411, 471, 468 and

420 PPC, Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad

disclosed the factum of stealing the vehicle in

the instant case whereafter the petitioner was

deemed arrested in the instant case on

12.09.2021 and, on such date, vehicle in

 Pa g e |3
Crl. Misc. No. 1402/2021

question was recovered on the pointation of the

Petitioner. Learned State Counsel further

submitted that the car was found to be

tampered with after chemical treatment.

Petitioner has been named in 20 other F.I.Rs in

which challans have been submitted though no

conviction has resulted as yet. In view thereof,

the learned State Counsel submitted that there

is a good chance that the petitioner will repeat

the offence if released on bail. Learned State

Counsel prayed for dismissal of present bail

petition.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. Perusal of the record shows that the

Petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R.,

however, since the vehicle in question was

recovered on the specific pointation of the

Petitioner, it prima facie provides the

Petitioner’s connection with the alleged offence.

7. Having said that I am mindful of the fact

that none of the offences the Petitioner is

charged with entails punishment that would fall

within the prohibitory clause of the Section

497, Cr. P.C., and as such bail in such matter

is a rule and refusal an exception as per Tariq

Bashir And 5 Others Versus The State, PLD

1995 Supreme Court 34 as well as case titled

Muhammad Tanvir Vs. State, PLD 2017

Supreme Court 733 cited by the learned

 Pa g e |4
Crl. Misc. No. 1402/2021

counsel for the Petitioner. The grounds for the

case to fall within the exceptions meriting

denial of bail include a) where there is a

likelihood of abscondence of the accused; (b)

where there is apprehension of the accused

tampering with the prosecution evidence; (c)

where there is a danger of the offence being

repeated if the accused is released on bail; d)

where the accused is a previous convict.

8. It is noted that the State Counsel has not

indicated any apprehension that the Petitioner

will abscond and has in fact conceded that

there is no chance of tampering of evidence as

the vehicle in question has been returned to the

complainant and is in his possession. It is also

undisputed that investigation has been

completed. However, it is noted with deep

concern that the record reflects that the

Petitioner has been named in almost 60 F.I.Rs

(as opposed to 20 highlighted by the learned

State Counsel) registered in Districts Lahore,

Islamabad, Mianwali, Sahiwal, Khushab,

Sargodha, Gujrat, Jehlum and Jhang, the

earliest being from the year 2011 and out of

which 30 are for the same offence i.e. 381-A.

Even though none of them have resulted in

conviction despite the long passage of time, it

does however indicate prima facie that the

Petitioner is prone to repeating the offence.

 Pa g e |5
Crl. Misc. No. 1402/2021

9. The apex Court in a recent case titled

Muhammad Imran Vs. State, PLD 2021 SC

903 declined bail, inter alia, on account of eight

[8] pending FIRs. The relevant para of such

decision is reproduced herein below:-

“4. Record shows that the petitioner has

been booked in as much as eight criminal
cases under the same offence with
different complainants and involving
sizable amounts of money. These cases
span over the years 2018 to 2020 and
three cases have been registered after
the registration of the instant case.
Even though the petitioner has
obtained bail in those cases, it does,
prima facie, establish that the
petitioner is prone to repeating the
offence. Petitioner having been declared
an absconder in this case for over one and
a half year generates the apprehension
that the petitioner may avoid standing trial
and hence delay the prosecution of the
case. The material on record makes the
case of the petitioner fall under two
exceptions to the rule of grant of bail as
mentioned above.” [Emphasis added].

10. I am, therefore, guided by such ruling in

concluding that the instant case falls within one

of the exceptions to the rule of grant of bail as

mentioned above. The case cited by the learned

counsel for the Petitioner does not advance his

case as the facts involved therein were different.

11. Given the excessive number of F.I.Rs in

which Petitioner has been named, this Court’s

conscience does not allow it to release the

 Pa g e |6
Crl. Misc. No. 1402/2021

Petitioner on bail. Hence, instant petition is

Dismissed.

12. The record shows that the challan has

been completed and is being sent to legal

branch. Therefore, the Trial Court is, hereby,

directed to conclude the trial within a period of

four months from the date of challan.

(SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ)

JUDGE
Sherazi