Petitioner Abdul Rasheed, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 289, dated 8.8.2005, offence under Sections 324, 380 and 411 PPC, registered at Police Station, Gaggo, District, Vehari for the allegations of stealing of two goats, belonging.to the complainant, hence, this case.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case by the complainant with malafide intention. The petitioner was arrested after ten days of the alleged occurrence. The alleged goats said to have been stolen by the petitioner were produced by the complainant himself. Further contends that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. The offence is said to have been committed on 1:30 a.m. at night and the F.I.R. was recorded at 3:40 a.m. (night). Neither the petitioner was arrested at the spot nor any identification parade was conducted. The offence under Section 324 PPC is not made out against the petitioner and the other offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Also contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and there is no progress in the trial. Reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused in the crime and in such like cases, when a doubt occurs about the truth or probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, benefit of the same should go to the accused making it a case of further inquiry, hence, petitioner deserves the concession of bail.
3. Conversely, learned State counsel opposed the bail application on the grounds that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence. Challan has been submitted in the Court. The petitioner remained absconder in this case and was arrested after ten days of the occurrence. Further contends that motorcycle and pistol was recovered on the pointation of the petitioner on 28.8.2005. The PWs of the F.I.R. fully supported the complainant's version, therefore, petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the order of the trial Court and police record. According to the F.I.R., it is a night occurrence. No body was identified at the time of occurrence. The complainant alongwith PWs chased the accused, who fired at the complainant and managed to escape. Later on, they were identified as Shahzad son of Abdul Aziz and Abdul Rasheed (petitioner) son of Muhammad Yousaf. No body has sustained injury during the occurrence. Nothing was stolen in this case. According to the F.I.R., two goats, alleged to have been stolen by the accused party, were in fact found by the complainant and he himself produced the same before the Investigating Officer. No identification parade was conducted, so ,how the complainant came to know the names of the petitioner and his co-accused. Subsequent involvement of the petitioner after ten days of the occurrence makes his case that of further inquiry. The alleged recovery of pistol and motorcycle alleged to have been made on 28.8.2005 from the petitioner is denied, however, same will be taken into consideration by the trial Court at the time of trial. Challan has been submitted in the Court on 19.9.2005, but no evidence has been recorded so far.
5. In view of the foregoing circumstances, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the, sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.