' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, I.--- Through this petition, Tariq Naeem petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,521 of 2005, dated 20-10-2005, registered at Police Station City Mian Channu, District Khanewal, in respect of offence under section 394, P.P.C. Later on, sections 411 and 109, P.P.C.
Were also added by the police.
2. Precisely, the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. Lodged at the instance of Abdul Hannan complainant is that on 20-10-2005 at 2-00 p.m. While he along with his brother was sitting in his shop, four unknown bandits stormed into the shop and held the complainant and his associates at gun point and made off with cash, pounds and other currency notes in all amounting to Rs,80/85 lacs. While they were fleeing away from the spot, Abdul Mannan brother of the complainant resisted, upon which one of the robbers opened fire hitting Mushtaq Ahmad and Abdul Rashid injured P.Ws. Two of the accused who were on foot snatched motorcycle from one Muhammad Ashraf and succeeded in running away.
' During the investigation, the complainant made a supplementary statement showing his suspicion of commission of the said crime at the instance and abetment of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 19-11-2005 and since then he is facing internment.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioner had not been named in the F.I.R.; that the only allegation against the petitioner is that of abetment; that the petitioner is suffering pre-trial punishment since 19-11-2005 but the early conclusion of the trial is not in sight and that the case against the petitioner requires further inquiry.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail application on the grounds that during the investigation, recovery of an amount of Rs,1,50,000 was made at the instance of the petitioner; that the petitioner facilitated and abetted the occurrence by providing a motorcycle owned by a brother of 'his wife; that the said motorcycle was recovered from the place of occurrence. He adds that on the date of the occurrence, the petitioner had lodged an F.I.R.
Against unknown persons complaining the commission of offence of dacoity during which motorcycle CD-70 (which was allegedly used in the crime) was allegedly snatched from him by some robbers, but said F.I.R. Was found to be false and cancelled, which fact, according to the learned -counsel for the complainant, shows that the petitioner was fully involved in this case.
Lastly he has contended that the charge in this case has already been framed, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the bail.
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has adopted, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and going through the record, I do not see eye to eye with the learned counsel for the complainant. On the contrary, I have fbund the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner more weighty. I have observed that the petitioner had not been named in the F.I.R. The only allegation against him is that of abetment. There is no direct evidence of abetment of offence against the petitioner. The perusal of the record shows that A after seven days of the occurrence, the complainant involved the petitioner in this case on the basis of suspicion and alleged that the occurrence of dacoity had taken place due to the abetment of the petitioner.
7. It has been further observed that the petitioner had been involved in this case mainly on the ground that on the day of occurrence, a motorcycle CD-70, without any registration number, was recovered by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. According to the prosecution, said motorcycle was owned by Ehsan-ul-Haq, who is brother-in-law of the petitioner. Another piece of evidence collected against the petitioner is recovery of an amount of Rs,1,50,000. The said amount was allegedly recovered from the house of father-in-law of the petitioner. Admittedly during the alleged offence of robbery, Pakistani currency was not looted by the unknown burglars. The petitioner claims that his father-in-law was pressurized to pay said amount. Be that as it may, the worth of said recovery would be seen at the time of the full dressed trial.
8. As far as the recovery of the motorcycle which was allegedly used in the occurrence is concerned, it has been noticed by me that on the day of the occurrence at 1-45 a.m. The petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. Complaining the offence of robbery committed regarding motorcycle CD-70 which was allegedly snatched from him by two robbers. The time of the occurrence of present case and the time of lodging of the said F.I.R. No,520 of 2005, registered at the instance of the petitioner is very relevant. According to the said F.I.R. No,520 of 2005, the offence robbery of motorcycle was committed at 12-45 a.m. And complaint of the petitioner regarding said crime was recorded at 1-30 p.m. On the basis of said complaint, F.I.R. No,520 was registered at 1-45 p.m. While the occurrence in the present case allegedly took place at 2-00 p.m. Meaning thereby, that F.I.R.
No,520 of 2005 had been registered about 30 minutes before lodging of the present F.I.R. i.e. 521 of 2005. It is the case of the prosecution that the said F.I.R. Was found false and was cancelled. Record shows that the case F.I.R. No,520 of 2005 was cancelled only on the basis of the statements of the complainant and other witnesses of the F.I.R. No,521 i.e. Case in hand instead of disbelieving the statement of eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. No,520 of 2005. The question as to whether the motorcycle CD-70 was in fact robbed from the petitioner and used by some other accused in the present case or whether the same was provided by the petitioner to the accused who allegedly committed the offence of burglary, would be requiring further inquiry.
9. The petitioner is behind the bars since 19-11-2005 and despite his pre-trial punishment of more than 16 months, the early conclusion of the trial is not in sight. As far as the question of start of trial is concerned, it has been noticed that the charge was framed on 25-1-2005, thereafter, Riaz co- accused was arrested and on 22-2-2007 prosecution sought time for submission of fresh challan which means that the charge is going to be framed afresh. Even otherwise, it is settled law that if the case of the accused becomes as that of further inquiry, the bail cannot be denied to him only on the ground of start of trial. Reliance is placed upon cases of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585, Muhammad Saleem v. The State PLD 1989 Lah.
233, Munir v. State 2002 M LD 712 and Zulfiqar Ali v. The State 1987 M LD 1608. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.