' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.--- Muhammad Irshad petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,4 of 2004 under sections 458, 380, 411, 412, 397, 337-D, 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), P.P.C. Registered on 4-1-2004 at Police Station Musafir Khana, Bahawalpur.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R.; that no identification parade was conducted although the same was necessary in view of the fact that name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the F.1.R.; that in view of law declared in Allah Wasaya v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 1659, identification parade in such-like cases cannot be dispensed with; that petitioner was arrested on 25-2-2004 and incomplete challan was submitted on 20-3-2004 but the trial has not commended so far for the reason that other co-accused are yet to be arrested and that in the F.I.R. Only six persons were mentioned whereas the complainant subsequently made a supplementary statement and roped in other persons as well which amounts to improvement and this is sufficient to hold the same as a matter of further inquiry. Reliance is placed on the case Atta Muhammad v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 1431.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed this petition.
4. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner or for that purpose any of the co-accused is not mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also admitted by the Investigating Officer, present in Court along with record, that no identification parade was conducted and that the complainant in his supplementary statement also implicated three more persons whereas in the F.I.R. The complainant had stated that six unknown persons had forcibly entered his house. It is also a fact that petitioner and five others are under arrest and the complainant added three more personi in his supplementary statement, makes the case one of further inquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about one year and only incomplete challan has been submitted so far. The trial is not likely to be commenced in near future. Keeping in view the above mentioned judgments and the fact that petitioner has been in jail since 25-2-2004 and that he is not named in the F.I.R. And also no identification parade was held to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence, I am of the view that matter is fully covered with the phrase "case of further inquiry". This petition is, therefore, allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Ilaqa Magistrate/trial Court.