' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--- The parties have further been heard.
2. Petitioner Muhammad Shakeel through the instant petition has prayed for after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,401 in offence under sections 392/411, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Yousafwala, District Sahiwal on 8-9-2007.
3. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that about five days prior to the registration of the case, at about 5-00 p.m. Within the area of Chak No,65/5-L, he along with two others on fire-arms point had snatched purse containing Rs,25,00 computerized I.D. Card and the mobile phone from the complainant and bag containing Rs,31,000 from his companion Muhammad Qasim and Nokia Mobile Phone from driver Muhammad Fayyaz and they later on before a Punchayat had confessed to have done so and promised to restore their belongings to them but did not do so. Hence, the case.
4. It has been contended roped in at the instance of one in his behalf that he has falsely been Rao Muhammad Shafqat, Sub-Inspector police being highly inimical towards him as his mother has got held an inquiry against him; that he neither is named nor his description given in the earlier part of the F.I.R. And these rather have been so in the latter one of the same; that he was not put to any identification test, while it was mandatory and in this regard, the case of Muhammad Akbar v.
The State 1998 SCM R 2538 can be referred to; that only the recovery of Rs,1000 and that too much after the alleged incident is shown to have been effected from him; and that he is behind the bars and not a previous convict.
5. On the other hand, the learned DPG has opposed the bail petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R. And so, was not required to be put to any identification test and hence, the authority referred to by his side is not aptly applicable herein; that at present it cannot be determined that if he has been involved at the instance of the aforesaid S.-I. Rao Muhammad Shafqat and such matter can only be resolved after recording of evidence; that recovery of Rs,1000 has also been effected from him; that he has remained an absconder for about two years and was declared to be so on 4-4-2008; that he was arrested in this case very recently; that the offence does fall within the prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And that he is also involved in any other cases of the type and the same heavily reflects upon his criminal tendencies and activities.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the record perused.
7. The bare perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that he is named in the same in the manner that the complainant came to know through one Akhtar Driver that he besides Imran Nazir and Suba has committed the act complained of.
' Further according to the same, the complainant along with Muhammad Fayyaz and Muhammad Qasim had gone to them and they confessed their guilt and promised to restore them their articles and money. So, if his name is not mentioned in the first part of the F.I.R., but it is very much contained in the later part of the same in the manner as mentioned above. He when is named in the F.I.R. In the manner that he and others have confessed to have committed the act complained of and promised to restore the articles and money to the alleged victims, it then was hardly required have him to put to an identification test. Hence, he cannot avail the view expressed in the above case referred to by his side as the same is not aptly applicable to his case for it's such distinguishable facts than that of the same.
As regards the contention from his side that his involvement in the instant case is at the instance of the aforesaid Sub-Inspector police, Rao Muhammad Shafqat, the same is a matter of deeper appreciation of evidence, which is neither permissible nor desirable at such a stage. Here at such a stage only tentative assessm ent of the material available on the record is to be made and deeper questions touching the merits or evidence are to be avoided.
8. The recovery of the allegedly looted amount to the tune of Rs,1000 is also shown to have been effected from him on his arrest from an iron box in his house. The case pertains to September, 2007.
He is shown to have been arrested very recently i,e, on 28-9-2009. He is also stated to have been declared a proclaimed offender. The offence also does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
9. In these circumstances of the case, I have not been persuaded to enlarge him on bail at this stage. The petition, therefore, is dismissed.
10. However, I may observe here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial.