' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,255, dated 14- 5-2004 under sections 372, 411, 109, P.P.C. Police Station Farid Town, Sahiwal.
2. According to the F.I.R. The complainant who was driving Toyota Corolla LRB-9762 was intercepted by three persons on the night of 14-5-2004 at 9-45 p.m. Before the main gate of his residence. All the three persons riding Honda City Car took the complainant along with his driver on pistol point, to some unknown place; where the accused person snatched Samsung Mobile from the complainant and Nokia Mobile of his driver and cash amount of Rs,8,000 from the complainant.
Thereafter, the accused party threw away the complainant and his driver near City Public Shool, Shadman Town. However, the complainant through his supplementary statement got recorded on 17-5-2004 named the petitioner and his co-accused by referring to some information received from an informant. The petitioner was arrested on 2-1-2005 and during investigation an amount of Rs,750 and one pistol was recovered from him.
3. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. Nor any identification parade was conducted, in the absence of which the petitioner could not be charged with section 392, P.P.C. Further argues that supplementary statement of the complainant also did not disclose the name or particulars of the informant (Mukhbar) from whom the complainant received information about the petitioner, thus identification of the petitioner is one of further inquiry which can only be determined after recording of evidence.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed this petition.
5. Arguments considered. Record perused.
6. Admittedly the F.I.R. Was got lodged against three unknown persons and name of the petitioner was disclosed by the complainant through his supplementary statement dated 17-5-2004 on the basis of some information laid by' some informant but neither his name nor even particulars are given. True identification of the petitioner especially in the absence of any identification parade cannot be determined at this stage. The petitioner is behind the bars since 2-1-2005 and other co- accused are statedly absconding. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars as a matter of punishment, as held by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case PLD 1968 SC 349 and PLD 1972 SC 81. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.