'SH. NAJAM UL HASAN, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,309 dated 22-8-2009 under sections 457/ 380, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Sadar Kamokay, Gujranwala.
2. The prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. By Aman Yousaf complainant is that on 20-8-2009 he along with his family members were away to Mir Pur to see his relative and his servant Muhammad Asif, present petitioner, was left to guard the house who along with others committed theft in the house and stole away gold ornaments and cash of Rs,16,000. The petitioner informed him that three persons Iftikhar, Safdar and Hamid have committed theft in the house. During investigation, said persons were arrested but nothing was recovered from them. The petitioner was later on arrested and Rs,10,000 was recovered from him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case; that there is unexplained delay of two days in lodging of the F.I.R; that there is no direct evidence available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence; that the petitioner was employee of the complainant party in the days of occurrence that co-accused Safdar had enmity with the complainant side. The petitioner has been falsely involved.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General states that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And the petitioner himself informed the names of other co-accused; that during investigation he was found fully involved as such he is not entitled for the concession of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Three persons were involved by the petitioner out of which two were released by the complainant and one was allowed bail by the learned trial Court.
The petitioner was a servant of the complainant and as such he was named in the F.I.R. During investigation the petitioner remained in police remand nothing incriminating was recovered to connect the petitioner with the instant crime. Only Rs,10,000 were recovered from the petitioner.
Investigation has been completed. The petitioner is no more required to the police for further investigation. There is no direct evidence available against the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out the case of post-arrest bail. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.