2004 PLP 1798 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395/458/380‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑No alleged stolen property could be recovered from accused during investigation‑‑‑Record had revealed that during investigation, complainant had merely suspected accused and his co accused to be the culprits and he was not definite about identity of accused persons‑‑ One of co‑accused who allegedly was armed with pistol, was arrested and about him complainant had submitted his affidavit exonerating him from occurrence ‑‑‑F.I.R. in case had been lodged with delay of 20 days for which no plausible explanation was available‑‑‑Police record was suggestive of fact that case against accused had been built up on the basis of suspicion‑‑‑Case against accused appearing to be a matter of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail. Gohar Razzaq Awan for Petitioner. Muhammad Aslam Khokhar for the State. Date of hearing: 13th January, 2004. This is bail after arrest application in case F.I.R. No. 410 of 1999, dated 9‑9‑1999, under sections 395/458/380, P.P.C. read with section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, of Police Station , Rajana, District Toba Tek Singh.

2. According to the, prosecution allegations on the night between 19/20‑8‑1999, while complainant alongwith his family members was asleep in the courtyard of his house, five culprits armed with fire arms including the petitioner, who was armed with pistol, entered his house and they captured the inmates and also outraged the modesty of the complaint's wife and thereafter they took away golden ornaments and cash amount of Rs.600 and other household articles such as T.V., ceiling fan. On the alarm raised by the family members of the complainant, other residents of the area were attracted and seeing them, they escaped from the scene of occurrence.

3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 30‑5‑2003 as he was declared absconder. During the investigations, no alleged stolen property could be recovered from him. The record reveals that during the investigations, the complainant had merely suspected the petitioner and his other co‑accused to be the culprits and was not definite about their identity. During the course of investigations, Bashir co‑accused who was also allegedly armed with pistol, was arrested and about him the complainant had submitted an affidavit exonerating him from the occurrence. The F.I.R. in this case had been also lodged with a delay of 20 days for which no plausible explanation is available. As the police record is suggestive of the fact that this case has been built up against .the petitioner on the basis of suspicion, therefore, his case appears to be a matter of further inquiry and as such, he is admitted A to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./S‑64/L Bail granted