2012 PLP 2777 (YLR)

ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.

The complainant was served but he is not in attendance.

2. The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.93 dated 6-6-2012, under sections 381/411, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Cantt., Kharian District Gujrat.

3. Allegation levelled by the complainant, the manager of shop, against the petitioner is that he being Assistant Manager in the shop, with the help of his co-accused had stolen away 2613 meters cloth valuing Rs.19,22,880 from the shop and sold the same in the market.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that there is an unexplained delay of 3/4 months in lodging the F.I.R. without any date and time of occurrence; that no witness was mentioned who saw the occurrence; that a recovery of Rs.25,000 is no recovery in the eyes of law; that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged crime; that offences do not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that under the National Judicial Policy it has been laid down that if the offence do not fall under the purview of prohibitory clause, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception; that the petitioner is in the judicial lock up since 11-6-2012 and is no more required for the purpose of investigation, hence the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.

5. Conversely, the learned D.P.G while opposing the application for post-arrest bail maintained that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; that father of the petitioner has produced Rs.25,000 before the Investigating Officer as recovery of case property, hence the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of post arrest bail.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but there is an unexplained delay of 3/4 months in lodging the F.I.R. without date, time and place of occurrence which makes case of the prosecution highly doubtful. The offences under which the petitioner has been involved do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes reference to the National Judicial Policy, 2000 which is re-produced below:-- "To overcome the problem of congestion in Jails, the court should exercise powers under section 497, Cr.P.C. keeping in view the principles of grant of bail including the principle that if the offence does not fall under the purview of prohibitory clause, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception." No recovery was carried out at the instance of the petitioner Rs.25,000 produced at the instance of Rab Nawaz, father of the petitioner, cannot be said to be recovery of case property at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner is in the judicial lock up since 11-6-2012. He is no more required for the purpose of investigation. In view of the National Judicial Policy, 2009 reproduced above coupled with the peculiar facts case of the petitioner has become that of further inquiry and as such the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

8. For what has been discussed above this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. MWA/S-102/L Bail granted.