ORDER SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.---The instant post-arrest bail petition has been filed on behalf of Haider . Shah, who is behind the bars, in a case arising out of F.I.R. No.26 of 2008, dated 2-2-2008, registered in Police Station Chak Bedi, District Pakpattan Sharif under sections 395/458/412, P.P.C.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story, as narrated by the complainant, in the F.I.R., is that during the intervening night of 9-1-2008 and 10-1-2008, six unknown accused, who were armed with weapons, made his brother Sakhi Muhammad, who was coming from the fields, hostage on gunpoint and forced him to call his brother Niaz Ahmad to open the door of the house, whereupon the said accused started beating Niaz Ahmad with the butts of their rifles. The accused also threatened the inmates of the house, got the keys of the boxes from the complainant and his brothers on gunpoint and looted Rs.50,000 in hard cash, gold ornaments weighing 45 tolas and .30 bore pistol in addition to a mobile (Nokia) telephone and registration book of a motor-cycle.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of 22 days in the registration of the case as the occurrence took place on 10-1-2008 whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged on 2-1-2008. He further submitted that the petitioner was implicated by the complainant through supplementary statement, which was recorded on 25-2-2008. He maintained that the identification parade, which was held on 11-5-2010, is of no significance as the complainant has already disclosed the identity of the present petitioner. He claimed that the recovery of Rs.20,000 has been effected from the father of the present petitioner and the same does not connect the present petitioner with the commission of the offence. He argued that the co-accused, namely, Saif Ullah alias Saifi and Abdul Ghafoor, against whom similar allegations were levelled, have already been enlarged on bail and the present petitioner is also entitled to the same concession following the rule of consistency.
Lastly, he argued that the present petitioner is behind the bars since 28-4-2010 and he is entitled to be released on bail as his case falls within the ambit of further inquiry.
3. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General opposed the instant bail petition on the ground that the present petitioner remained absconder for a period of more than two years and proceedings under section 87, Cr.P.C. Were initiated against him. He further submitted that the present petitioner has not only been specifically implicated by the complainant in the supplementary statement dated 25-2-2008 but was also identified by the complainant and the P.
Ws. During the identification parade held on 11-5-2010. He maintained that the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from the case of the co-accused Saif Ullah and Ghafoor Ahmad, who were not identified in the identification parade and they were granted post arrest bail after one year and two years of their incarceration, respectively. He further explained that two other F.I.Rs., under section 380, P.P.C., stand registered against the present petitioner, who is a habitual offender and likely to abscond or repeat the offence, in case of release on bail.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. First of all, I would like to observe that the occurrence took place on the intervening night of 9-1- 2008 and 10-1-2008 and the present petitioner remained absconder for a period of more than two years and his arrest was effected on 28-4-2010. Identification parade was conducted on 11-5-2010, wherein the complainant as well as the witnesses of the prosecution identified the present petitioner as an accused. Furthermore, an amount of Rs.20,000 and .30 bore Pistol have been recovered from the present petitioner, which, prima facie, connects him with the commission of the alleged offence. The Case of the present petitioner is not identical with his co-accused Saif Ullah alias Saifi and Abdul Ghafoor as they were not identified by the complainant or the witnesses of the prosecution during identification parade. It is also pertinent to mention here that the co-accused Saif Ullah alias Saifi and Abdul Ghafoor were arrested few days after the occurrence and they remained in Jail for a period of one year and more than two years, respectively. On the other hand, the present petitioner remained absconder for a period of more than two years and now behind the bars for the last only about five months. Two other F.I.Rs, under section 380, P.P.C., and one F.I.R.
No.557 of 2007, dated 30-10-2007, under section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, XX of 1965, stand registered against the present petitioner and in case of his release on bail, he is likely to abscond or repeat the offence. The. Punishment of the offences, falling within the mischief of sections 395 and 458, P.P.C., alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. In view of above, the present petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Consequently, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous, filed on behalf of Haider Shah for his post arrest bail, is dismissed.