' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail petition contends that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case; that there is a delay of 16 hours in lodging the F.I.R., petitioner was not named no recovery was effected; that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry and that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R., his name was corrected on the same day through a supplementary statement but admitted that no recovery was effected from him.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. Correct name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. Which was brought on record through a supplementary statement although on the same day but no source of information has been mentioned. Although he remained on physical remand for nine days yet no recovery was effected from him. In the afore-referred circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioner has made out a case falling under subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. And is entitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.