Muhammad Azmat petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 148 dated 5.3.2006, registered under Sections 392/411 PPC at Police Station Green Town, Lahore.
2. Precise allegations as per FIR are that three unknown persons had entered the factory of the complainant and had committed dacoity of Rs, 19,38,107/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to him. Petitioner was nominated in the supplementary statement after 1(1/2) years of the occurrence. He further submits that no crime weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and only Rs, 10,000/- have been recovered from him. No identification parade was ever held to identify the accused persons.. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last ten months. Under the circumstances the petitioner be released on bail.
4. Learned DPG while opposing the bail application submits that the petitioner has been held guilty in police investigation. Recovery of Rs, 10,000/- has been effected from him. He, however, submits that no identification parade was held to identify the accused persons.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and have also perused the record. Petitioner is not nominated in the FIR and no role has been ascribed to him. FIR was only got registered against unknown persons and who are those unknown persons it was not known to any one. Since no identification parade was held, therefore, nothing definite can be ascertained regarding the identity of the present petitioner which could possibly connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner. He has been nominated in the supplementary statement after 1(1/2) years. This fact alone proves that after such a long time complainant has not been able to trace out the real culprits. No weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner. Amount recovered from the petitioner is only to the extent of Rs, 10,000/- whereas dacoity had been committed to the tune of Rs, 19,38,107/- and there is no evidence on record that as to whether the amount which has been looted in the said occurrence is exactly the same which has been recovered from the petitioner. In such like situation, the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to 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 trial Court.