Petitioner has moved this petition under Section 498 Cr. P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 529 dated 30.09.2010 under Sections 380/411 PPC registered at Police Station City Kamoke District Guj ranwala.
According to the prosecution story some unknown persons while entering into the house of the complainant stolen away cash, gold ornaments, mobile phone and wrist watch.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is not nominated in the FIR; that petitioner was not nominated in the first and second supplementary statement but he was introduced in this case through third supplementary statement; that Nadeem and Adnan co- accused of the petitioner had made confession before the Ilaqa Magistrate and they were sentenced to 3-months SI along with fine of Rs, 500/- each. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to them.
3. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition on the ground that wife of co-accused made statement that after committing theft Naeem co-accused had handed over bag to her; Further contends that the brother of the petitioner namely Naeem got recovered gold ornaments and cash; that the petitioner remained absconder and that no mala fide intention is proved against the complainant; that recovery is still to be effected from the petitioner.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly, none is nominated in the FIR but the petitioner was booked in the case on the disclosure made by wife of Naeem co-accused. During the occurrence the brother of the co- accused got recovered stolen articles i,e, gold ornaments, cash and mobile phone. The brother of the petitioner has been implicated in this case through supplementary statement but during investigation he got recovered the stolen articles. Petitioner also remained absconder. Recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. In that eventuality grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner would amount to stifle the investigation. The petitioner remained failed to prove any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner through order dated 25.05.2011 is hereby recalled and this petition is dismissed.