' RANA ZAHID MAHMOOD, J.---After arrest bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order, dated 4-2-2008 in case F.I.R. No.246 of 2007, dated 19-8-2007 under section 392, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Mochi Gate, Lahore wherein it was alleged that on 19-7-2007 at about 2-30 p.m. The complainant was present on his general merchant shop in Shah Alam Gate, Lahore when four unknown young boys armed with pistols trespassed into the shop and took away a shopper containing Rs.30,00,000 (thirty lacs) and ran away. The complainant himself made an inquiry before registration of this case and then came to know that the occurrence had been committed by one Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Hussain along with co-accused and a resident of Lakhu Bhatti District Silakot who was habitual offender and had committed the offence along with three unknown co-accused. Instant case then was rekistered after one month of the occurrence.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely involved and is Chowkidar in PICIC Commercial Bank, Lahore and it is alleged that he used to inform the criminal about heavy transaction withdrawal of amounts from the bank and submitted that since allegedly the money had been brought from the Bank thus it was taken away by Muhammad Aslam etc. Co- accused. Learned counsel submitted that initially a Rapat was recorded with the Police Station on 19-7-2007 bearing No.22 of Police Station Mochi Gate, Lahore according to which complainant was not present on the shop at the time of occurrence and the occurrence had also been committed by two unknown person. He also submitted that petitioner had not accompanied with Muhammad Aslam etc. Co-accused at the time of actual occurrence and at that time one Muhammad Hassan, Muhammad Aslam alias Tooti and Altaf were present and committed the offence. He submitted that mere recovery of Rs.200,000 (two lacs) on more than one occasion from the petitioner do not link up the petitioner with the commission of offence. He submitted that no identification parade has ever taken place in this case. He therefore, submitted that case against the petitioner being one of further inquiry he is entitled to bail.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel. Fir the complainant has opposed the bail application and submitted that recovery of Rs.200,000 have been made from the petitioner at different times comprising of different amounts, therefore submitted that he is connected with the commission of offence. Further submitted on the statement of Muhammad Aslam co-accused whose name is mentioned in the F.I.R., petitioner was arrested and submitted that it was the petitioner who used to inform the co-accused about heavy withdrawal of the amounts from the Bank where-after actual occurrence was comititted. He submitted that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to bail.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And in such like cases non- mention of the name of culprit or culprits is not of much significance. The petitioner according to prosecution has been arrested on the statement of Muhammad Aslam co-accused. Recovery of a total of Rs.200,000 (Two lacs) on different occasions of different amounts would not link the petitioner sufficiently with the commission of offence. It is the case of prosecution itself that petitioner was not amongst the four who committed robbery on the shop A of the complainant and those were Muhammad Aslam, Hassan Muhammad, Aslam alias Tooti and one Altaf. The petitioner may be recipient of booty. Case against the petitioner therefore, calls for further inquiry. This petition is therefore, accepted and petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.