' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,1353 of 2007 dated 2-12-2007 registered under sections 395 and 412, P.P.C. At Police Station Nishat Abad Tehsil and District Faisalabad.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per narration of F.I.R. Are that he along with his accomplices had stolen fabric from the factory of the complainant valuing Rs,4,00,000 as well as .12 bore gun and cash amount to the tune of Rs,14,000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is unexplained delay of twenty-four hours in lodging of the F.I.R. Therefore, possibility of deliberations cannot be ruled out. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. And no specific role has been ascribed to him. It was an unseen occurrence.
He further submits that no description of features as well as physical appearance was mentioned in the F.I.R. By the complainant, therefore, identification of the petitioner and other co-accused becomes highly doubtful. No identification parade has been held by the prosecution in order to identify the accused persons. He further submits that Muhammad Sadam and Hameed, on whose information supplementary statement was recorded, were neither examined by the prosecution nor their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was ever recorded on the basis of which they got supplementary statement recorded and involved the petitioner with the commission of the, said offence. Recovery of the stolen articles have been planted on the petitioner as it has been effected jointly from all the accused persons and joint recovery has no evidentiary value. He lastly submits that challan of the case has been submitted in the trial Court and there is absolutely no progress in the case, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his arguments he has relied upon Muhammad Nazir v. State 2006 PCr.LJ 177, Muhammad Rafique v. State 1997 SCMR 412, PLD 1996 Lah. 402, 1999 MLD 1258, 2002 PCr.LJ 114 and 1981 PCr.LJ 696.
4. Learned D.P.-G. Opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. In the supplementary statement on 2-12-2007 on the information provided to the complainant by Kh. Shajar and Bilal Amin, who had seen the accused persons carrying stolen fabric as well as rest of the articles on a Dala. He further submits that there is absolutely no malice or enmity on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner with the commission of the said offence. Huge quantity of fabric has been recovered from the petitioner along with .12 bore repeater gun and cash amount. He lastly submits that challan of the case has already been submitted in the trial Court, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.-G. And have also perused the record. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And no role has been ascribed to him. It has also been established from the record that it was an unseen occurrence because all the eye-witnesses mentioned in the supplementary statement who had allegedly seen the occurrence did not make effort in apprehending the accused persons and had they been present at the place of occurrence, as there is no mention in the F.I.R. That the petitioner along with his accomplices were armed, therefore, they could have very easily been apprehended by the eye-witnesses. Had the accused persons been armed then this aspect could have been believed that they had seen the occurrence and could not apprehend them because the accused persons were armed but there is no such thing on record, moreover, no description of the feature or physical appearance of the accused persons have been mentioned in the F.I.R. Had they been identified by the eye-witnesses then certainly they could have been identified subsequently or their names could have been mentioned in the F.I.R. No identification parade was ever held which is a mandatory requirement of law in cases of unseen occurrence. This lapse on the part of the prosecution certainly gives benefit to the accused persons regarding their identification.
6. As far as eye-witness account mentioned in the supplementary statement by Kh. Shajar and Bilal Amin is concerned, I am afraid they had not directly seen the accused persons, rather they had stated in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. That they heard from one Sajjad that accused persons are so and so, I am afraid hearsay evidence has absolutely no significance and admissibility in the eye of law.
7. Lastly, recovery effected from the petitioner of the stolen fabric was not only effected from him, rather it was a joint recovery which was also effected from the co-accused, meaning thereby that case of the petitioner clearly falls within the ambit of further inquiry into his guilt for the reason that it is not exactly known as to how much fabric was recovered from the petitioner and it is also to be seen whether recovered fabric is exactly the one which was stolen or it is something else. This aspect of the case also makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.
8. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit him to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
' Petition stands disposed of.