The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 560/2008 dated 9.6.2008, registered under Section 406, 506 PPC at Police Station Nishtar Colony, District Lahore.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he had fleeced Rs, 10,00,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of buying him cheaper property at Lahore.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an un-explained delay of one year in lodging of FIR, therefore, possibility of deliberations cannot be ruled out. There is no description of property about which the petitioner had promised the complainant to buy at Lahore, therefore, there was no reason on the part of the complainant to straightaway hand him over Rs, 10,00,000/-.
He further submits that the case of the petitioner under which he is liable to be tried does not fall in the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last five months and no recovery has so far been effected from him. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the cases reported as Ramzan Vs. The State (2007 YLR 1380) and Masood Baghpati and another Vs. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1648).
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been held guilty in police investigation and there is no reason for the complainant to falsely implicating the petitioner in this case.
5. Learned DPG also opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific role. However, he submits that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. He has referred to the case of Afzal and Malik Iqbal, who are the ones who had fleeced Rs, 10,00,000/- from the complainant and against whom the allegations have been levelled and not the petitioner.
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 I am afraid there was no reason for the complainant to lodge FIR after the lapse of one year. Even if at all fraud of Rs, 10,00,000/- has been committed with him, he could have instantly lodged the FIR. This inordinate delay of lodging of FIR has not been explained, therefore, case regarding implication of the petitioner with the commission of offence becomes doubtful.
Moreover, there is no description of property which the present petitioner had promised the complainant to buy and the complainant had blindfoldedly handed over Rs, 10,00,000/- to the petitioner without going into the details regarding description of the property as well as its location.
This would also cast doubt in one's mind regarding veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, therefore, handing over Rs, 10,00,000/- to the petitioner seems improbable and the case of the petitioner does not fall in the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
7. 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 trial Court.