' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- The petitioner an accused of case F.I.R. No,156 of 2005, dated 26- 2-2005 registered under section 392, P.P.C. At Police Station Khurrianwala, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, seeks post-arrest bail.
2. Briefly the facts of the case as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Are that while in the morning of 20-1-2005 he along with conductor Shabbir Hussain after loading the cloth from Awami Goods left Faisalabad for Lahore by Track No,3577/C and at 5-00 p.m., when they reached Dars Muftiabad, at Lahore Road, the speed of truck became reduced as the road was under construction. The truck was driven by Shabbir Hussain whereas the complainant was sitting on front seat. In the meanwhile, one person who was armed with pistol, through conductor door on pistol point made the truck stopped whereas the other person who was armed with dagger entered in the truck through driver gate and asked them to hand over to them what they have.
Under the threat the complainant gave them Rs,4,000, watch Seiko-5, gold ring and some documents to them. The accused demanded more money while the accused having entered from conductor gate who was having pistol with him took out a dagger from his Nepha and inflicted blows which landed on his different parts of the body and the accused thereafter decamped. After 2/3 days he came to know the name of the accused who entered through the conductor gate was Shahzad alias Shadda son of Shabbir Ahmad and the other who entered into the truck through the driver seat was Abdul Rashid alias Sheeda, residents of Chak No,77/R.B.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not personally known to the complainant and during the occurrence he was not identified by the complainant and thereafter, for the reasons best known to the complainant the petitioner was implicated in this case. It is further contended that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner who is innocent and the other co-accused who has been ascribed the similar role has been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposed this petition and submits that the petitioner remained absconder for seven months and after his arrest he was found guilty during the investigation.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State and perused the record. As narrated in the F.I.R. The complainant could not identify the assailants due to darkness as the petitioner was previously not known to the complainant and the complainant did not mention the source as to wherefrom he gained the knowledge that the petitioner has committed the offence. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the petitioner. The F.I.R. Was lodged after 36 days, the delay of which was not explained even. Prima facie the involvement of the petitioner in the case requires further probe; the petitioner is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation and to keep him behind the bars for indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose therefore, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt. Even otherwise on the rule of consistency as the co-accused of the petitioner is allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.
6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted 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 learned trial Court.