' MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Through this 2nd petition Muhammad Nasir Iqbal petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in caw F.I.R. No,1309, dated 15-12-2010 registered at Police Station Gulberg, Lahore, in respect of offences under sections 392 and 411, P.P.C. Earlier petition of the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25-1-2012 through Criminal Miscellaneous No,310-B of 2012.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that case against the petitioner is totally false and fabricated; that there is an inordinate delay of about three days in lodging of the F.I.R. Without any explanation; that petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. Rather he was 'involved in this case through supplementary statement of the complainant made on 15-4-2011; that no identification parade was held in this case for proper identification of the assailant; that recovery of mobile phone (without mentioning its serial number), unspecified cash amounting to Rs,100,000, and two track suits shown against the petitioner, is a fabrication on the part of the part of the police and is not a valid evidence to connect him with the commission of alleged offence; that in the circumstances, case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt; that petitioner is behind the bars since 23-5-2011 without any substantive progress in the trial.
3. Conversely, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposing this bail application contends that although name of the petitioner is not figured in the F.I.R. Yet he along with his co-accused namely Ahsan Khalid has been named in this case through supplementary statement of the complainant made on 15-4-2011; that petitioner is a habitual offender and five other criminal cases under the similar offences, have also been registered against him; that there is no mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. Further adds that the prosecution witnesses are fully supporting the prosecution case; that recovery of mobile phone, cash amounting to Rs,100,000, 15 Sarees and two track suits, has already been effected at the instance of the petitioner and that is sufficient evidence to connect him with the commission of the alleged crime; that offence against the petitioner is very heinous in nature and falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
And involvement of the petitioner in such a heinous offence and repetition of the same crime, does not entitle him for bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Be that as it may, allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused committed robbery on gun-point in the house of the complainant and took away different articles with them. Although petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Yet he along with his co-accused A namely Ahsan Khalid has been named in this case through supplementary statement of the complainant made on 15-4-2011, wherein she has categorically stated that she/ incidentally saw the present petitioner along with his co-accused while sitting at Bundu Khan Restaurant, she came to know about the whereabouts of the petitioner and his co-accused and she instantly disclosed this information to the police. Learned Law Officer and Investigating Officer after consulting the record confirm that petitioner is a habitual offender and five other criminal cases i,e, F.I.Rs, Nos.109 of 2009, 109 of 2010, 767 of 2010, 84 of 2011 and 165 of 2011 of similar nature, have also been registered against him. There is recovery of a mobile phone, cash amounting to Rs,100,000, 15 Sarees and two track suits at the instance of the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to show any or enmity of the complainant to falsely involve him in this case. The offence under section 392, P.P.C.
Falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Prima facie, there is sufficient evidence available on the record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime, therefore, I, am not persuaded to admit the petitioner to bail, hence, this petition being devoid of any force is dismissed.
6. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.