ORDER ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.-Ghulam Nabi petitioner/accused in case F.I.R. No.18 of 2010, dated 8-1-2010, under section 397/412, P.P.C., Police Station Saddar Pakpattan Sharif has sought for post- arrest bail through this petition.
2. As per F.I.R. Lodged on 8-1-2010, on the application of Murad Ali complainant, it is alleged that on 4-1-2010, at evening time he along with P.Ws. Arshad Javed and Muhammad. Hussain was carrying a load of maize 425 mound on his trolley and tractor Massey Furgosen Registration No.PKA-1088 towards Pakpattan when reached near the tube-well of General Umrao Khan, nine unknown persons armed with firearm weapons one having pistol.30-bore, the other gun 12-bore, the other three armed with rifles and remaining armed with Sotas' intercepted them near a damaged 'Pulli'; that when he reduced the speed of tractor all the accused climbed over the tractor trolley and started beating him; that one accused gave a sota blow on his right hand and other gave rifle blow on his head; that in the scuffle one of the accused fell down from the tractor and got injured whereupon one accused fired a straight shot with his pistol towards him but luckily saved; that thereafter accused deborded him from the tractor and tied him; that the accused also extorted Rs.300 from his pocket and his pistol.30-bore with license along with mobile; that accused also took away the documents of the tractor from the toolbox; that P.Ws. Were also deprived of cash sum of Rs.500 and mobile phone; that thereafter accused took them to cotton crop towards west and kept them on gun point; that accused had called one of them as Ghafoor and another as Saqlain; that at the morning time the accused decamped from the spot.
3. I have given patient hearing to the learned counsel for the parties, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State and perused the record.
4. F.I.R. In this case is lodged on 8-1-2010 after delay of four days from the date of occurrence i.e. 4- 1-2010. Petitioner Ghulam Nabi is not nominated accused in the F.I.R. Rather he along with other accused was nominated through supplementary statement of the complainant dated 10-2-2010 and was joined with investigation of this case on 7-2-2011 when he was found detained in District Jail Vehari in another case. His physical remand was obtained on 9-2-2011. On 11-2-2011 recovery of Rs.60,000 was effected from him which he arranged from his house through his brother-in-law Muhammad Ashiq and produced it to the Investigating Officer at the Police Station. Perusal of the record reveals that no identification parade of the petitioner was ever got conducted by the police.
Admittedly, the petitioner was neither known to the complainant nor identified by him as an accused at the time of occurrence. In the absence of identification parade the allegation regarding complicity of the petitioner as one of the accused in the alleged occurrence necessarily remains a matter of further probe. The alleged recovery of Rs.60,000 effected through brother-in- law of the petitioner is also inconsequential. There is no evidence on record to establish that allegedly recovered amount of Rs.60,000 was a part of sale proceeds of the looted maize. Co- accused A Muhammad Anwar, Zulfiqar and Ifrahim had already been allowed concession of bail on the basis of affidavit of the complainant exonerating them by accepting their innocence although one of them namely Ifrahim was identified in the identification parade. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that above named accused persons Muhammad Anwar, Zulfiqar and Ifrahim had compensated the complainant, therefore, complainant had not raised any objection on the grant of bail in their favour and that present petitioner has never approached the complainant for compensation. I am afraid if it could be a good ground to decline the bail to the petitioner when he is otherwise found entitled to concession of bail on merits for the above discussed reasons. The arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that petitioner is nominated accused in some other cases of like nature is also devoid of force as the complainant has failed to produce any order of conviction against the petitioner in such like offences.
5. Nutshell of the above discussion is that in the absence of identification parade, mere supplementary statements of the complainant and P.Ws. Implicating the petitioner as one of the accused of the occurrence neither previously known to them nor identified at the time and place of occurrence, cannot be termed as prima facie incriminating material against him to connect with the occurrence, especially When the alleged inconsequential recovery is not confidence inspiring and fails to furnish any reliable corroboration. Besides petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail on the principle of consistency as his co-accused with identical role have already been allowed concession of bail on the basis of affidavit of the complainant. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last about six months. There is no progress in the trial. He is no more required by the police for further investigation. Certainly, he cannot be detained in the jail for indefinite period, therefore, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bond 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..
8. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.