2002 PLP 1618 (MLD)

Petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in F.I. R. No.467 of 1999 dated 16‑12‑1999 under sections 458/395, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Syedwala, District Sheikhupura.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co accused committed lurking house‑trespass into the house of the complainant and thereafter deprived the complainant of the valuables and golden ornaments described fully in the F.I.R. referred above.

3. The petitioner applied for bail on merits as well as on statutory grounds which has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana vide order dated 9‑8‑2001. Hence the instant petition.

4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

5. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R., as occurrence took place on 14‑12‑1999 whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 16‑12‑1999 and the said delay has not been explained properly, that the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. and has been nominated alongwith others, in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on. 2‑2‑2000, that initially the complainant has implicated/involved as many as 8 persons whereas in supplementary statement he has nominated only 5 persons and is silent about the 3 unknown persons, that the petitioner was arrested on 27‑2‑2000 and is said to have led to the recovery of Rs.2,000 on 3‑3‑2000, that a licensed gun of his father has been planted on him, that no identification parade was conducted in the instant case although it should have been conducted. He thus submits that all these facts make the case of the petitioner open for further inquiry. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon Abdullah alias Mannan v. The State (2000 MLD 1608 Karachi) and Haji Kamal Hussain v. Zulfiqar Ali and others (1997 SCMR 970).

6. Conversely, bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned counsel for the State. To supplement his contentions, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that besides the present petitioner his other co‑accused Sakhi Muhammad, Aurangzeb and Muhammad Bashir have been arrested whereas one of their companion Muhammad Tariq is still at large, that although a meager amount of Rs.2,000 has been recovered from him yet he shared common intention with his co‑accused, who have led to the recovery of Rs:60/65,000 as well as other golden ornaments. He further contends that the conduct of the petitioner shows that he is a desperate criminal, as such not entitled to the relief of bail on merits as well as on statutory grounds.

7. A perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that initially none was named therein. It is on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant dated 2-2‑2000 that he nominated 5 persons and out of them one is the present petitioner. It is also fact that petitioner was arrested on 2‑2‑2000 and is said to have led to the recovery of Rs.2,000 on 3‑3‑2000. The petitioner is in jail since his arrest and up till now even the charge has not been framed, as it is stated by the learned counsel for the complainant that the case is now fixed for 16‑10‑2001 for framing of charge. There is also nothing on the record to show if the petitioner stands involved in any other case.

8. For the reasons given above, we find that the case of the petitioner requires further probe. As such petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./G‑189/L Bail granted.