' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Shah Nawaz Bajwa, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition, seeks post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.718, dated 28-11-2004, registered at Police Station, Saddar Sialkot, for an offence under section 392, P.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Shamas Din son of Munir was that on 28-11-2004, about 8-00 a.m., from his house he was proceeding towards Badiana on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.STQ-6777, Model 2004; when he reached near railway crossing Bhagowal, a motorcycle 125-CC without registration number arrived from the side of Badiana, on which three persons were riding; all three of them, who were armed with Mausers stopped him; one of them sat on his motorcycle and took him towards Badiana; after a short-while they made him disembark from the motorcycle and removed an amount of Rs.1,500 from his pocket and also snatched his helmet; he recognized the accused persons as Muhammad Yasin son of Muhammad Idrees, Shah Nawaz son of Akbar (the petitioner) and an unknown, who could be identified if brought before him. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner had been arrested on 9-3-2005 and is in custody ever since. His plea for post- arrest bail was initially turned down by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Sialkot vide his order dated 19-5-2005 and thereafter by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot vide his order dated 9-6-2005.
Hence, the instant petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record brought by Muhammad Riaz, A.S.I.
5. It has straightaway been observed that Muhammad Yasin, co-accused, who had been attributed exactly a similar role with which the petitioner has been burdened, has since been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot vide his order dated 25-3-2005. The reason, which weighed with the learned Sessions Judge for extending concession of bail to Muhammad Yasin co-accused was that the complainant had made an exculpatory statement qua the said Muhammad Yasin, whereas he has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner.
The very fact that the petitioner and Muhammad Yasin were saddled with identical roles and that the complainant later on exculpated Muhammad Yasin, is sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the credibility of the complainant. He cannot be allowed to arrogate to himself the authority to initially involve someone in a case falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And thereafter at his own whims to exculpate him of the charge. This circumstance is a poor reflection on the antecedents and credibility of the complainant and the possibility that the petitioner had been falsely implicated cannot outrightly be excluded. This makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, keeping in view the principle of consistency, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. Before I part with this order, I would like to add that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are not designed to influence the trial of the case.