While seeking bail of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case, that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R, that there is four days delay in lodging the F.I.R, that no money was recovered from the petitioner during the course of investigation; that the petitioner was involved in this case through a supplementary statement at the time when he was in Sialkot; that the identification Parade at such a belated stage is of no value; that both the parties hail from the same village; that the investigation is complete, he is no more required for further investigation and that, in the afore- referred for further investigation and that, in the afore-referred circumstances, this case, being one of further falling under sub-section(2) to section 497, Cr.P.C, petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail by this Court Placed reliance on 1989, P.Cr.L.J. 2227 and 1987 M LD 1003 in support of the submissions made.
2 On the other hand, while opposing the prayer for bail made by the petitioner, learned State counsel submits that although the petitioner is not named in the F I R. Yet he is specifically involved in the case through a supplementary statement; that the petitioner was identified in jail after having completed all legal formalities; that the injury attributed to him is on the chest; that the delay has been explained; that the parties were not known to each other and hail from different villages which rules out the possibility of having known to each other; that the petitioner was found guilty by the police during identification; that the offence alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C, and that since the offence is heinous one, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail by this Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record and have also given anxious consideration to their respective submissions made at the bar.
4. Lt is well known principle of criminal jurisprudence that in suchlike cases normally parties are not known to each other. The accused are either involved through supplementary statement or through identification parade, ln the instant case, the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the chest of the- victim which is attributed to the petitioner. Petitioner was arrested on 22.7.2004, Identification Parade was held on 23.7.2004 and not only the petitioner but his father also identified the petitioner in jail with specific roles who are star witnesses of the case. He was declared fugitive from law and was arrested after five months of the occurrence. The petitioner was found guilty during the investigation. So far as the contention of the petitioner that both the parties reside in the same vicinity is of no avail to the petitioner because as per address given in the body of the petition, petitioner is resident of Village "Harbans" while, as per address given in the F.I.R., the complainant is resident of Village "Pandori" in this case Identification Parade was held promptly.
Normally in suchlike, the accused persons are not traced out and if, after hectic efforts, they are apprehended, taking of such like pleas are very common. The accused involved in the cases, like the one in hand, do not deserve any discretionary relief of bail because their enlargement on bail would amount to let loose them on the society to repeat suchlike acts. Nobody is safe in his house, the people are robbed in the streets and or on the roads, they are deprived of their hard earned money and even the accused do not feel hesitation to take lives of the people, lt is an offence against the society and until and unless if not curbed with iron hands no peace and tranquility prevail in the society. The precedent case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case, ln the above-referred circumstances, this Court is of the, prima facie, view that the offence alleged against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C, and the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly, this petition is hereby dismissed having no merit.