' This is bail after arrest application in case F.I.R. No,101 of 2003, dated 10-7-2003, under sections 395/412, P.P.C. Of Police Station Qila Ahmadabad, District Narowal.
2. According to the prosecution allegation on 19-3-2003 at about night time Muhammad Akram Butt, complainant boarded Toyota Hiace Wagon No,2766/LRC from Adda Gujranwala, in order to go to Narowal and on the way four passengers sitting in the wagon told Muhammad Akram Driver of the wagon at a place, where two other persons were standing on the road side and when the wagon stopped, the four passengers along with two persons standing on the road side, took out their weapons and encircled the wagon and made the driver disembark from his seat and took the wagon aside and looted the passengers by snatching from them cash amount and wrist watches.
Subsequently, on 1.0-7-2003 the complainant learnt that the occurrence had been committed by the petitioner along with his five other co-accuseds named in the F.I.R.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 4-8-2003 and he had led to the recovery of pistol and.
Rs,500 cash.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is a delay of four months in lodging the F.I.R.
For which no explanation has been given by the complainant and that it is not borne out as to how the complainant learnt about the petitioner being one of the culprits and that no source of information had been indicated in the F.I.R. And that the petitioner's implication is merely on basis of suspicion and that no incriminating material had been recovered from the petitioner and that recovery of cash amount of Rs,500 does not link the petitioner with the occurrence.
5. Admittedly there is a delay of four months in lodging the F.I.R. For which no explanation is available. It is also not mentioned in the F.I.R. As to how the complainant learnt about the petitioner being one of the culprits. No doubt, upon the arrest of the petitioner cash amount of Rs,500 had been recovered, but it cannot be stated with judicial certainty that the said cash amount was snatched by the petitioner during the occurrence because it is highly unlikely that the petitioner after snatching the said cash amount would keep the same in his custody unspent in order to produce before the police after he is arrested in this case. The fact mentioned in the F.I.R. Itself makes the case of the petitioner regarding his involvement in the occurrence a matter of further inquiry. As such he is admitted to bail in sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.