2009 PLP 1831 (YLR)

KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.

The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.185/2008 dated 8-5-2008 registered under sections 395/412 P.P.C. at Police Station Sarai Mughal District Kasur.

2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per . supplementary statement emanating from the aforesaid F.I.R. are that he had committed robbery in the house of complainant and had stolen Rs.4,70,000 along with gold ornaments as well as Nokia Mobile Phone.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R, he is rather involved in the supplementary statement. He further submits that no Identification parade has been held to identify the petitioner. Recovery effected from the petitioner was Rs.55,

000. He further submits that there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record against the petitioner. He lastly submits that co-accused Ghafar has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and role of the petitioner is identical with that of co-accused, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the present petitioner be also allowed bail.

4. Learned D.P.G. opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that recovery has already been effected from the petitioner which is sufficient evidence for the involvement of the petitioner in the above said case. The petitioner has committed heinous offence and the offences under which the present petitioner is liable to be tried fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He lastly submits that the challan of the case has been submitted in the trial Court and trial Court has taken cognizance of the matter, therefore the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.G. and have also perused the record. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and no role has been attributed to him. He has been involved in this case in the supplementary statement which was recorded subsequently. No identification parade has been held in order to identify the petitioner. There is no direct or indirect evidence on record which could connect the petitioner with the commission of the said offence. As far as question of recovery is concerned, I am afraid there are certain other articles which have also been robbed by the accused persons. Mere recovery of cash amount would not suffice until and unless it is established that the money recovered from the petitioner is exactly the same one which was robbed by him. This aspect of the case would cast serious doubt in ones mind regarding commission of the said offence. Co-accused Ghaffar has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and role of the petitioner is identical with that of the co-accused, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the present petitioner be also allowed bail as his case is not in any manner distinguishable from the co-accused who has already been granted bail.

6. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt, I therefore, admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand), with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. Petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./A-179/L Bail granted.