2011 SCMR 1405 (PLP)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

Through this petition Jamshaid Asmat alias Sheedu petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 26-4-2011 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 26-4-2011 refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in the cross-version of case F.I.R. No. 174 registered at Police Station Saddar, Hafizabad on 5-5-2010 in respect of an offence under section 392, P.P.C.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.

3. The occurrence in this case had taken place at about midnight and according to the F.I.R. the culprits perpetrating the alleged offence had remained unknown and unidentified at the spot. The petitioner had not figured in the F.I.R. in any capacity whatsoever and his name had surfaced in this case for first time through a supplementary statement made by the complainant on 1-7-2010, i.e. after about two months of the alleged occurrence. It was asserted through the said supplementary statement that the petitioner and his co-accused had been seen by some witnesses travelling on the stolen tractor and trolley. It is of some significance to mention here that some of the co-accused of the petitioner also nominated through the same supplementary statement, had subsequently been exonerated by the complainant himself which fact had substantially reduced the credibility of that supplementary statement. During the investigation the stolen trolley had allegedly been recovered at the instance of the petitioner but it is not disputed that the said trolley had been recovered from the Dera of one Shahbaz and, thus, the same had not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. We have been informed that a sum of Rs.95,000 in cash and also a gun had also been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case but it is not denied that there is nothing available on the record of investigation to connect the recovered cash or gun with the offence in issue. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and a Challan has been submitted and, therefore, physical custody of the petitioner is not required at this juncture for the purposes of investigation. The circumstances of this case detailed above lead us to an irresistible conclusion that the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt.

4. For what has been discussed above this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and, resultantly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. M.H./J-7/SC Bail allowed.