' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J---Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,630 of 2007, dated 7-7-2007 registered at Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala, in respect of offence under section 392, P.P.C.
2. This is second application for post-arrest bail, earlier application bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,9117-B of 2007 was dismissed by this Court due to non-prosecution vide order-dated 24-1-2008.
3. Precise allegation against the petitioner, as per F.I.R. Is that on 4-7-2007 at about 10-30 p.m. The petitioner along with his co-accused snatched two cell phones, an amount of Rs,76,00, driving licence and other documents, from the complainant, on the gun point.
4. In support of this application learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the complainant appeared before the, learned Judicial Magistrate and submitted an affidavit to the effect that the accused were not named by him and he had no objection if the bail is granted to the petitioners; that the co-accused of the petitioner had been allowed bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, therefore, the petitioner is entitled bail on the basis of rule of consistency and that the complainant is also present in the Court and he intends to submit affidavit in support of the petitioner.
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has strenuously opposed the bail application on the grounds that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R.; that recovery of a cell phone and driving licence of the complainant has been effected from the petitioner; that the offence committed by the petitioner is not compoundable and that the petitioner is involved in another case bearing F.I.R.
No,363 registered at Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala in respect of offences under sections 399 and 401, P.P.C.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I have straightaway noticed that there is a delay of three days in lodging the F.i.R. According to the complainant the robbers were not previously known to him but interestingly enough, while lodging the F.I.R. He specifically named the petitioner and his co-accused in the F.I.R., without disclosing his source of information on the basis of which he, after the occurrence, came to know the names of the said bandits. Further, the complainant has appeared before this Court and submitted an affidavit (Mark-A) wherein he has categorically stated that alleged offence was not, committed by the petitioner. The complainant has been identified by the police officer present in Court.
7. It is true that the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner are not compoundable but at the same time it is also a fact that the said Muhammad Ijaz Siddiqui (complainant) is no more interested in prosecuting the matter. After making a conceding statement by the star witness of the prosecution a dent has been created in the prosecution's case, to say the least. Chances of the ultimate success of the prosecution have been weakened if not diminished. Therefore, a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Has been made out. After making out a case of further inquiry he has become entitled to bail as a matter of right, which cannot be denied to him simply on the ground that he stands involved in another case which has yet to be tried.
8. Consequently, the application in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one hundred thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.