1. By this application, applicant Muhammad Anis seeks bail in Crime No, 90 of 2007 registered at P.S. Steel Town, under Section 395 PPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.5.2007 at 10.15 p.m. complainant received telephone call from Broker Zer Khan that the truck containing 8 imported generators loaded on Truck No, RIN 4416 from Port Qasim for Lahore is snatched at Link Road near Yousuf Goth by five persons with muffled faces, 2 of them armed with TT pistol alongwith cash of Rs, 25,000/- lying in truck and the mobile phone. After registration of FIR police started investigation and recovered the stolen generators and arrested co-accused Ghulam Hussain on the spot. On further investigation present applicant was arrested on 19.7.2007 alongwith other accused.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely involved in this case. Applicant is neither named in the FIR nor any physical appearance of any of the culprits is mentioned in the FIR. That the only piece of evidence with the prosecution against the applicant is statement of co-accused Aziz under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which, according to learned counsel does not disentitle the applicant of the concession of bail. That no Identification Parade has been conducted. The co-accused has not made any confession or statement before the Magistrate.
4. That the complainant being a victim would be interested to involved any person in view of his sufferings. That no recovery has been shown to have been effected from the present applicant.
5. That there is nothing on record which may lead to inference that the present applicant is involved in the commissioner of offence as alleged by the prosecution. He contended that the case of co- accused Ghulam Hussain and Hussain Ali, whose bail applications have been rejected, is distinguishable from that of the present applicant. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the cases of Ghulam Hussain v. The State (1997 P.Cr. L.J. 1782), Mrs. Saeeda Ahsan v.
6. Province of Punjab (1992 M LD 1322), Muhammad Nasim v. The State (2000 YLR 3010) and Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq v. The State (1992 P.Cr. L.J. 1910).
7. The application is opposed by learned State counsel. He contended that the applicant is part of a racket involved is sale/purchase of stolen articles. That the co-accused Aziz has specifically stated that the present applicant works as a broker in such illegal deals. That the offence falls within the propitiatory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and at this stage the applicant is not entitled to the concession of bail.
8. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, neither any recovery has been effected from the possession of the applicant nor the applicant was arrested from the spot. The only piece of evidence available with the prosecution connecting the present applicant with the commission of offence is in shape of statement of co-accused Aziz recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the absence of any Identification Parade, or recovery from the possession of the applicant, this evidence prima fade is not strong enough to deny the present applicant the concession of bail. Even the said statement is not corroborated and it is well settled that statement of co-accused without corroboration is not acceptable against other accused. On being asked learned state counsel could not refer to any other material available with the prosecution against the present applicant. It has been variously held by the apex Court that the basic object behind the criminal jurisprudence is to enable an accused to answer the criminal prosecution against him rather that to keep him in an human warehouse indefinitely. The grant of bail cannot be withheld as punishment on the ground that the offence with which the accused is charged is non-bailable.
9. In view of the above, the prima facie there is no sufficient evidence against the applicant connecting him with the commission of offence with which he is charged and the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly the application is allowed and the applicant is admittedly to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.