' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Muhammad Siddique is the complainant of case F.I.R. No,274 of 2008 dated 6-9-2008 offences under sections 395, 109, 412 PPC, registered at Police Station, Shah Bhore, District Okara.
2. Briefly, the version of the complainant is that 9 persons armed with rifles scaled over the walls and entered his residential house, made all the members of the family hostage at gunpoint and looted gold ornaments and other household articles including cash, the detail of which has been mentioned in the F.I.R., and fled away with the booty. The complainant showed his suspicion against Riaz alias Laho, Muhammad Iqbal, Tahir alias Tari and Ilyas alias Ali who admitted their guilt before a Punchayat and promised to return the looted property but thereafter, flatly refused to do so. He further alleged in the F.I.R. That the occurrence, in his house, had been committed at the abetment of Muhammad Sarwar and Ahmad Yar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. But he was falsely involved in this case by the complainant through his supplementary statement recorded after about one year of the occurrence; that the complainant did not disclose his source of information as to the nomination of the accused/petitioner as an accused of this case; that test identification parade had not been conducted in this case; that recovery of cash amounting to Rs,50,000 has been planted upon the petitioner to fabricate false evidence against him; the supplementary statement cannot be a substitute for the F.I.R. Nor it could be read as a part thereof; the petitioner is behind the bars for the last seven months and there is no tangible progress in the trial.
4. On the other hand, learned Addl. Prosecutor-General has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner with the contention that the petitioner had admitted his guilt before the Punchayat and had promised to return the looted property but thereafter he resiled; that the petitioner was nominated as accused by the complainant in supplementary statement dated 27-8-2009; that the petitioner had committed an offence which falls within the mischief of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner's name was introduced as an accused for the first time by the complainant on 27- 8-2009 i,e, about one year after the occurrence. He is not one of those accused who had allegedly made extrajudicial confession of their guilt during the meeting of Punchayat. The recovery of cash amounting to Rs,15,000 at his instance during the course of incident cannot be considered as a substantive piece of evidence nor there is any circumstance to prove that the currency notes allegedly produced by the petitioner were a part of the looted currency notes.
7. The investigation of a criminal case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant is a recent innovation which has been devised by the incompetent police officers who have gone beyond the limits of law to cut shot the process of investigation which has been causing indescribable damage to the prosecution cases. Such sort of statements cannot be considered as an integral part of the F.I.R. And it, at the most, can be treated as a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. The first information report is recorded under section 154, Cr.P.0 but any statement of the complainant subsequent thereto shall be recorded and dealt with under section 161, Cr.P.C. The F.I.R.
Of course contains the first hand information whereas no such qualification is attached with a subsequent/secondary statement of the complainant.
8. The addition of the name of the petitioner in this case through a supplementary statement of the complainant can hardly be taken into consideration for the reason that no explanation or disclosure has been made by the complainant about the source of his knowledge or belief qua alleged involvement of the petitioner in this case. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner's case is open to further inquiry into his guilt as required under section 497 (2), Cr.P.C.
9. For the foregoing reasons I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.