The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 118 dated 27.5.2005 registered under Sections 395 & 412 PPC at P.S. Sahuka Burewala District, Vehari.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the night of 19.5.2002 six unknown persons committed dacoity in the house of Muhammad Hanif and took away various articles and Wagon No, 6055/MNO. Later on the petitioner Qurban Ali was allegedly involved in this case on the statement of the complainant.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR but later on he.was involved in this case on the statement of the complainant; that there is a delay of seven days in lodging the FIR; that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Abdul Sattar, Munir and Akhtar have been allowed bail, as such the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail on the rule of consistency and that the petitioner was arrested on 16.8.2004 and since then he is in jail.
3.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.
4.Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Actually the petitioner was not named in the. FIR but later on he was involved on the statement of the complainant. There is a delay of seven days in lodging the FIR. Co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Abdul Sattar, Munir and Akhtar have been allowed bail as such, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bait on the rule of consistency. The petitioner was arrested on 16.8.2004 and since then he is in jail. No useful purpose will be served to put the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period.
6. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (rupees one ac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.