' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---Criminal Miscellaneous 2575-B of 2007 arises from case F.I.R. No,262, dated 8-11-2002 registered with Police Station Gojra District Mandi Bahauddin for offences under sections 458 and 380 Pakistan Penal Code on the statement of Saee Muhammad complainant.
2. In his aforesaid statement Saee Muhammad complainant disclosed that on 8-11-2002 at about 2 a.m. When he was sleeping in his house, three unknown persons awakened him; broke open the lock of box and took away gold ornaments and cash. The unknown accused also awakened Zahoor son of the complainant and also took away cash amounting to Rs,6000/7000. Complainant claimed, to have seen one of the accused armed with a rifle. Complainant added that aforesaid accused persons also took away his Yamaha motor cycle No,4657.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that presence and participation of the petitioner in the commission of crime was highly doubtful; he has been made a scapegoat in a false criminal case after the lapse of four years of the occurrence. Adds that complainant being resident of the same village knew the petitioner, yet he did not disclose the particulars of the petitioner in the F.I.R.
And that complainant had been prevaricating by means of various applications raising his suspicion on different persons as responsible for the commission of theft at his house. Different persons were arrested, interrogated and were let off by police from time to time. And ultimately, on complainant's application, D.P.O. Directed the D.S.P. Concerned to verify the investigation carried out by local police. And in the course thereof, Azam a proclaimed offender had disclosed about the theft of complainant's case, and also disclosed that petitioner had been providing shelter to him.
Being aggrieved, petitioner's brother had filed a writ petition before this Court, whereby SP Investigation was directed to conclude the investigation strictly in accordance with law. But neither the petitioner was summoned nor any investigation was conducted.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn this Court's attention to the report submitted by the S.H.O. To this Court stating that on 16-9-2003 complainant had moved an application suspecting Nazir Ahmed, Azmat and Azhar Iqbal to be involved in the commission of theft at his house. Nazir Ahmed was stated to have been arrested and sent to jail. Thereafter, complainant made yet another application raising his suspicion on the petitioner and his brother. Adds that complainant has been blowing hot and cold without bringing any incriminating evidence to show the connectivity and participation of the petitioner in the commission of crime. That petitioner was arrested on 14-9-2006 and sent to judicial lock up on 23-9-2006 whereas challan was submitted on 15-1-2007 and is in continuous detention without any substantial progress towards the conclusion of the trial.
5. Learned D.P.G. Says that petitioner has been involved on the basis of Supplementary statement of the complainant. Petitioner is stated to have sold the stolen motorcycle and got recovered an amount of Rs,37,000 on 22-9-2006. Adds that petitioner was found -guilty in consequence of investigation by the D.S.P. On 24-6-2005.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and gone through the facts emerging in the instant case.
7. Admittedly, to begin with, petitioner was not specifically named in the F.I.R. Which was registered only against unknown persons. It is equally evident that complainant at various points of time involved various people and finally the petitioner was apprehended after as long as four years of the occurrence. As regards alleged recovery of currency notes after several years of the occurrence and the disclosure of his name by the alleged coaccused/a proclaimed offender, suffice to say that it is hardly relevant as no clue of the motorcycle the alleged stolen property and its sale by the petitioner was found by the police. In these circumstances, provisions of section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. Are fully attracted and this being a fit case of further inquiry entitles the petitioner to be released on bail. Accordingly, by accepting this petition, I direct that petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, One hundred thousand (Rs,100,000) with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of, the trial Court.