' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Muhammad .Amjad son of Ch. Sardar Muhammad, petitioner, by filing this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,553 of 2005 dated 7-12-2005, registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Faisalabad, for offences_under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as it unfurled in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Sarwar Ali Shah son of Muhammad Ali complainant was that he in connivance with Muhammad Safdar co-accused and others Deprived the complainant of Rs,31,00,000 on the pretext of investment in a transaction with Army Supply Core with the promise to give him rupees twenty five lac as profit but they neither returned his original amount nor did give, its profit.
3. The petitioner had been arrested on 31-5-2007 and is in custody ever since. His plea for post- arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who turned down his application vide order dated 7-3-2006. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State and have gone' through the record.
5. It has been observed that Muhammad Safdar co-accused who had been attributed exactly the same role had been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide order dated 7-3-2006. The reasons which prevailed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge in extending the concession.Of bail to the co-accused inter alia were; that both the parties had filed suits for rendition of accounts against each other which were pending in the civil Courts; that dispute appeared to be of civil nature and that the offences charged with did not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The aforesaid bail granting order in favour of Muhammad Safdar had been challenged before this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No,3448/CB of 2006 which was later on dismissed as having not been pressed. The learned Deputy Prosecutor- General has not been able to point out any distinguishable feature of the case whereby the concession of bail could be declined to the petitioner in that as already stated the same concession had been extended to his co-accused Muhammad Safdar with exactly similar role.
6. Insofar as the abscondence of the petitioner is concerned, it is admitted by the prosecution that he was arrested on 31-5-2007, as such he is in custody for the last more than four months. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on an unreported case "Inayatullah v. The State"
(Criminal Miscellaneous No,600/B of 2007) wherein it was held by this Court that where the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence itself requires further inquiry within the purview of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The petitioner cannot be detained in jail for an indefinite period by way of punishment for his abscondence only.
7. Resultantly keeping in view the principle of consistency the petitioner is also admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties 'each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.