The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case No, 136/08 dated 8.4.2008, registered under Section 457, 380, 41 PPC at Police Station Saddar Bhakkar.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he alongwith his accomplices had broken into the shop of the complainant and had stolen general merchandise articles worth Rs, 1,50,000/- at mid night.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and in fact no such occurrence has ever taken place and he has been involved in this case on the basis of footmarks. He further submits that search of the petitioner was since made on the basis of footmarks, therefore, this exercise could have been done by an expert, whereas no expert has been produced as a witness in this case, therefore, recovery of the stolen articles from the petitioner is highly doubtful. He further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last four months.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant while opposing bail application of the petitioner submits that recovery of stolen articles have been effected from the petitioner's house, therefore, the petitioner is fully liable to the commission of the offence, which disentitles him to be released on bail.
5. Learned DPG also opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific role. He further submits that the petitioner is liable to be tried under Section 457 PPC which is a non-bailable offence and falls in the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. He lastly submits that the petitioner has been held guilty in police investigation.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned DPG and have also perused the record. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR but at the same time this Court has to make tentative assessment on the basis of available record and as per narration of FIR it is clearly established that there are two eye- witnesses of the occurrence namely Abdul Hakeem and Muhammad Hussain Shah. It is absolutely surprisingly that these two eye-witnesses have been mentioned in the FIR of the alleged occurrence but they did not make hue and cry during the course of the commission of offence at mid night when they could have very easily either tried to apprehend the accused persons or could have at least raised hue and cry but they had not done so, therefore, it seems that both eye- witnesses, mentioned in the FIR, were not present at the time of occurrence, therefore, story narrated in the FIR seems fabricated and concocted.
7. As per FIR all the stolen articles are general merchandise products and house hold articles. The value of the stolen articles as mentioned in the FIR is Rs, 1,50,000/-, but recovery effected from the petitioner of the stolen articles is worth Rs, 18,000/-. If it is so then rest of the stolen articles could have also very easily recovered from the house of the petitioner. This also makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.
8. As per the narration of FIR, petitioner and his accomplices were traced on the basis of footmarks and no expert of footmarks was ever produced as a witness. It is pertinent to mention here that when two eye-witnesses of the occurrence had identified the accused persons while committing the offence then practically there was no need to .undertake an exercise to engage the services of tracker. Normally A services of the tracker are hired in case of non-availability of any witness but in the instant case two, eye-witnesses had identified the accused persons right away. Hiring the services of tracker becomes meaningless when eye-witnesses fully identified the accused persons.
It is therefore, established that the entire story narrated in the FIR is concocted and unbelievable.
9. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner 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 trial Court.