2005 P Cr (PLP)

Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner. Mehr Ashfaq for the State. Rana Muhammad Nazir Saeed for the Complainant. Date of hearing; 13th April, 2004. Through this petition the petitioner seeks his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.200 dated 5‑12‑2002 registered under sections 395/412, P.P.C. at Police Station Ghaziabad, District Sahiwal.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. and he has been involved due to mala fide and there is no evidence on record against the petitioner except the statement of Abdul Ghafoor co‑accused on 6‑11‑2002; that petitioner was arrested on 8‑1‑2003 and since then he is behind the bars. Further submits that no identification parade had been held in this case.

3. Conversely learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the grant of bail.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record carefully. The perusal of the record shows that petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. but he was subsequently involved in this case due to statement made by the co‑accused during the investigation in another case. Record further reveals that the alleged identification parade was conducted on 24‑12‑2002 wherein it has been cited that the petitioner was picked up as person involved in the instant case whereas record shows that petitioner was arrested on 8‑1‑2003 that means that he had been apprehended earlier and was kept by the police without showing his arrest and thereafter identification parade was conducted and after completing all, the formalities, petitioner was officially shown to be arrested on 8‑1‑2003. Therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that petitioner was shown to be prosecution witness before the identification parade was conducted. Mere pending of 12 eases against the petitioner is of no avail to the prosecution as in none of those cases petitioner had been convicted. The offence in this case was committed on 15‑10‑2002 whereas same was reported on 5‑11‑2002 after about 20 days. The delay has not been explained by the prosecution which also casts doubt in the veracity of the prosecution version whereas petitioner was arrested on 8‑1‑2003 and recovery was effected on 12‑1‑2003 with no specific marks of identification and also no independent witness had been associated with the recovery proceedings. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 1 year without any progress in his trial. His further detention in jail would not advance case of the petitioner, any further. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, I am of the opinion that case against the petitioner falls within the admit of further inquiry. Prosecution is not in possession of incriminating material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the instant case. Accordingly I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned; trial Court. N.H.Q./I‑85/L Bail granted.