ORDER IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHARY, J.-r Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 72, dated 29.3.2004, registered under sections 392/412, PPC at Police Station Cantt., Sargodha on the application of Rana Abad AN.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that four unknown persons with muffled faces forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and committed dacoity at pistol point in consequence whereof they looted a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- gold ornaments, garments, telephone set, camera, C.D.
Player, VCR and search light etc. During the investigation a statement was made on 27.4.2005 in which the petitioner has been nominated as one of the accused who had participated in the occurrence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is of tender age and recovery has. Been planted upon him rather the same is fake and fabricated, it is also contended that two co-accused of the petitioner are still absconder and the petitioner belongs to Faisalabad; that 1 year has been passed but the charge has not been framed so far and identification parade has not been conducted and no evidence is available against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of the crime.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes this petition on the ground that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. And an amount of Rs. 43,000/- has been recovered from Muhammad Imran and Rs. 42,000/- from Sarfraz. It is also contended that wrist watch, CD Player, VCR, Remote Control, Intercom have also been recovered at the instance of the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. The petitioner has been named as a culprit who had participated in the occurrence of dacoity by the complainant in his supplementary statement recorded -on 27.4.2005 and the complainant and other^witnesses had no enmity, grudge or ill-will to falsely implicit the petitioner in the present case and the petitioner admittedly previously was not known to the complainant. Moreover, during the investigation an amount of Rs. 43,000/- has been recovered from Muhammad Imran and Rs, 42,000/- from Sarfraz alongwith wrist watch, CD Player, -VCR, Remote Control, Intercom have also been recovered at the instance of the petitioners. No ground is made out for grant of bail as recovery of huge amount cannot be planted upon the petitioners by the police or by the complainant; The petitioners are prima facie connected with the commission of the crime. Hence, this petition having no merits is dismissed.
5. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the receipt of this order.