2003 PLP 559 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380/458‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Further inquiry ‑‑‑F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of about 24/25 days and even in that belated F. I. R. accused had not been nominated as one of perpetrators of the alleged offences‑‑‑No recovery of any sort had been effected from the accused in connection with the case and no identification parade had been held so as to positively implicate accused in the alleged offence‑‑‑Name of accused had surfaced for the first time through a supplementary statement made by complainant before Investigating Officer about 27 days after the registration of F.I.R. and about a month and a half after alleged incident‑‑‑Such implication was based only upon an alleged identification of accused by complainant in police custody ‑‑‑Challan had already been submitted after completion of investigation‑‑‑Continued custody of accused in jail was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose‑‑‑Case against accused called for further inquiry into his guilt‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Ch. Tariq Javaid for Petitioner. Ms. Rabia Bajwa for the State. Through this petition Muhammad Arshid petitioner has sought post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.805 registered at Police Station Sadar, Kasur on 27‑12‑2001 for offences under sections 458/380, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a delay of about 24/25 days and even in that belated F.I.R. the present petitioner had not been nominated as one of the perpetrators of the alleged offences. It is not disputed that no recovery of any sort has been affected from the petitioner in connection with the present case and no test identification parade has been held in this case so as to positively implicate the petitioner in the alleged offences. The petitioner's name had surfaced in this case for the first time through a supplementary statement made by the complainant before the Investigating Officer on 23‑1‑2002, i.e. about 27 days after registration of the F.I.R. and about a month and a half after the alleged incident and such implication was based only upon an alleged identification of the petitioner by the complainant in police custody. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.

3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M‑1579/L Bail granted.