The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in a case FIR No, 139 dated 12.6.2006, offence u/S. 395/402, 342, 412 PPC, 20 Haraba, registered with Police Station, Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad.
2. Allegation against the present petitioner is that he alongwith his four persons committed dacoity in the house of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no direct evidence available against the petitioner; that he has no concern whatsoever with the commission of offence; that story narrated in the FIR is highly doubtful; that petitioner is behind the bars for the last two years; that no identification parade was conducted; that recovery, which has been planted upon the petitioner is fake one, which was made after 17 days during investigation of another case from the house of co-accused, which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law; that Section 17 Haraba has already been deleted, which makes the case as one of further inquiry; that originally, case was registered u/S. 395 read with Section 17 Haraba, but alter one, Sections 412, 402, 342 PPC and Section 20 Haraba were added, those were not attracted; that no features of the accused were mentioned in the FIR.
4. On the other hand, learned Federal Counsel has opposed the bail petition. However, he has conceded that only one ring has been recovered and no identification parade was conducted.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Petitioner is behind the bars for more than two and half years and there is no progress in the trial so far. Admittedly, no identification parade was held in this case, as in original FIR, no one was nominated. Applicability of Sections 412, 402, 342 PPC and Section 20 Haraba shall be seen at the time of the trial. Only tentative assessment is warranted under the law. Deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be made.
6-A. Expeditious trial is the fundamental right of the accused. No person could be detained in judicial lock up for an indefinite period. Even after lapse of more than two and half years, challar has not been submitted in the trial Court and the same is still lying in the prosecution branch.
7. Petitioner is previously non-convict and is first offender. Only piece of evidence available with the prosecution connecting the petitioner with the commission of offence, is the recovery of ring, which has been made from the house of co-accused.
8. For what has been discussed, above, I am inclined to accept this bail petition. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bond of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand), with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.