SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Rizwan petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,718 of 2010 dated 17-6-2010 for an offence under section 379, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Factory Area, District Sheikhupura, on the complaint of Farooq.
2. Precisely the prosecution case is that the complainant is a resident of Mananwala, District Sheikhupura; on 14-6-2010 when he had gone to see Muhammad Akbar a contractor at Canal Rest House Khanpur; where, he put off his shirt, hanged it with a nearby tree and started taking bath in the said canal; after a while when he checked his shirt, he found his mobile Nokia 1203 and Rs, 6000 missing; during search he came to know that his mobile and the said amount had been stolen by the present petitioner.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant due to previous grudge as he had contracted marriage with one Sobia without the consent of her parents as a result whereof F.I.R. No, 326 of 2010, for an offence under section 496-A, P.P.C. had been got registered against him at Police Station Manga Mandi, Lahore; he moved pre-arrest bail petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,6176-B of 2010 which was confirmed by this Court vide order dated 18-6-2010; that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodgment of F.I.R. and that in fact no occurrence of stealing mobile and cash had ever taken place.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General controverts the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with the contention that the petitioner has failed to prove any malice or mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate him in this case and that the P. Ws. Maqsood Ahmad, etc. have fully supported the prosecution case and that it is a case of bail before arrest and the petitioner may not be allowed the same which is meant only for the innocent.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It has been found that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the suspicion shown by the complainant in his statement recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. whereby he has contended that he had learnt that his cash and cellular phone had been stolen by Rizwan one of his companions. Muhammad Iqbal ASI, the Investigating Officer of this case has been repeatedly asked to hint at the evidence against the petitioner but he has been beating about the bush.
Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has drawn my attention towards the statement of one Maqsood recorded on 17-6-2010 who has also made a stereotyped statement adopting the plea that he too had learnt about the involvement of the petitioner in the instant case. I have also gone through the record which is to-date absolutely silent as to the source of information of the complainant as well as that of Maqsood Ahmad P.W.
7. The petitioner has been nominated in the F.I.R. only as a suspect by the complainant. The doubt or suspicion how strong soever cannot be equated with the admissible evidence and it is always an accused who being a favorite child of law is entitled for the benefit of doubt even at bail stage.
The investigation record of this case reveals that the complainant has been unable to produce any connecting evidence against the petitioner. The false implication of the petitioner in such like situation due to malice or ulterior motives of the complainant cannot be ruled out.
8. For the foregoing reasons I accept this petition and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner in terms of this court's order dated 6-8-2010 is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.