ALTAF IBRAHIM QURESHI, J.---Through the instant petition, the petitioner-Faisal, seeks his post- arrest bail in a case arising out of F.I.R. No, 295, dated 13-7-2010, registered with Police Station Muradpur, District Sialkot, under section 392, P.P.C.
2. Precisely, the prosecution story, as per F.I.R., is that three unknown decoits, while armed with firearms, committed robbery of Rs,45,000 in the Utility Store.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R., that the Identification Parade has no value in the eye of law, as the same was held after 70 days of his arrest; that fake recovery of Rs, 10,000 has been planted upon the petitioner and; that the petitioner is previous non-convict.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition on the grounds that the present petitioner is a record- holder and involved in seven cases of similar nature; that the petitioner was identified in the Identification Parade and looted amount has been recovered from him.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He was already arrested in case F.I.R. No,412 of 2010 and during his arrest in the said case, his disclosure of committing dacoity, cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence to connect him with such offence. No detail or description of three dacoits has been given in the F.I.R. During Identification Parade, got conducted, almost after 93 days of the occurrence, the complainant-Muhammad Amir Rasheed, who admittedly is not the eye-witness, identified the present petitioner as his accused and stated that:-- "present accused was standing outside the store while other two accused trespassed into the Utility Store and committed robbery."
' It is very strange and open to doubt that how the complainant, who admittedly is not an eye- witness of the occurrence and when no description of the dacoits with their standing position at the time of robbery was given in the F.I.R., identified the present petitioner after 93 days of the occurrence. In such type of delayed identification parade, wrongful involvement of the petitioner in the case in hand cannot be ruled-out. As no detail of looted currency has been mentioned in the F.I.R., therefore, the recovery of Rs,10,000 after 93 days of the occurrence, would be a matter of evidence and its sanctity would be seen in trial after recording of evidence. Petitioner is non- convict. He is behind the bars for the last more than seven months and no more required for further investigation and the trial is not in sight. To keep the petitioner in Jail for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose.
7. In view of the above, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry, therefore, he is accepted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.