2009 PLP 1074 (YLR)

KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.

Safdar Ali petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.1275/2007 dated 8-12-2007, registered under sections 392/ 395/412, P.P.C. at Police Station Factory Area District Faisalabad.

2. Precise allegations against the petitioner, as per the narration of supplementary statement, are that he along with his accomplices had entered the house of the complainant and had stolen gold ornaments as well as some of the house hold articles worth Rs.2,00,000.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false because he is only nominated in the supplementary statement and the instant case stands registered against the petitioner due to the mala fide on part of the Investigating Officer who is inimical to the petitioner. Petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. No identification parade has been held in order to identify the petitioner. He further submits that there is no direct eye-witness account against the petitioner as two ladies have also not been produced in whose presence the occurrence had taken place and had also not identified the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year and co-accused of the petitioner, namely Ijaz has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. Since the role of Ijaz is identical with the role of the petitioner, therefore, petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail.

4. Learned D.P.G. opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the supplementary statement. He has been held guilty in police investigation. Challan has already been submitted in the trial Court and he last argues that there are no mala tides on the part of the police or the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner especially when they had already declared the co-accused as innocent.

5. I have heard both the learned counsel and have also perused the record. Petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. rather he was involved in this case in the supplementary statement. No identification parade was ever held to identify the petitioner. Two ladies who were present at the place of occurrence were also not produced for evidence nor did they identify both the accused persons and there is no other direct or indirect evidence available on record against the petitioner regarding the commission of the offence. Co-accused Ijaz has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and the reason for declining the bail to the present petitioner is that recovery of the one ear ring has been effected from the petitioner. In this context I may observe that many gold ornaments as well as household articles were stolen as per the narration of the F.I.R. and the total amount of stolen article which has been mentioned in the F.I.R. is around Rs.2 lacs whereas only on ear-ring has been recovered from him, therefore, possibility of planting one ear ring cannot be ruled out because Investigating Officer could not have recovered rest of the articles from him. Had he recovered rest of the articles then it could have been believed that he was involved in the theft case especially when he .was not identified by inmates of the house and the prosecution has not been able to hold identification parade.

6. For the foregoing reasons, I am convinced that the case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to 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 trial Court. H.B.T./S-38/L Bail granted.