' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Muhammad Imtiaz (petitioner) seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No,584 of 2011 dated 13-6-2011 under sections 392 and 411 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Mansoor Abad, District Faisdlabad.
2. Precisely, the prosecution case as stated by Sadaf Ilyas complainant is that four unknown armed men broke into her house at 4-00 p.m. On 12-6-2011; rendered the inmates of the house hostages and. Snatched from them cash, gold ornaments, cell phones, C.D etc. At gun point. The complainant furnished a brief description of features of the unknown accused in the F.I.R.
3. The petitioner after having been arrested on 11-7-2011 was sent to judicial lockup on the following day for identification purpose. The test identification parade was staged on 15-7-2011 during the course of which Mst. Samar Naz, Mst. Uzma Tabbasum and Mst. Sadaf Ilyas (complainant) correctly picked him up as an accused of this case.
4. The petitioner underwent physical remand for 14 days but this time period remained unproductive.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely involved in this case and he has nothing to do with the occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R.; the petitioner was well-known to the complainant prior to the registration of this case as he being a rickshaw driver had been carrying Mst. Uzma Tabbasum, the sister of the complainant to her educational institution for about one year; despite having undergone maximum period of physical remand, nothing was recovered at the instance of the petitioner; the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, he may be granted the relief prayed for.
6. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes with, the submission that the petitioner was correctly identified by as many as three prosecution witnesses during the course of test identification parade; he has been found involved in the occurrence during, the course of investigation and his name stands placed in Column No,3 of the challan. Lastly submits that the offence, the petitioner is charged with catches prohibition of section 497(1), Cr.p.C, therefore, his bail plea may be declined.
7. The complainant is also present in person and appears over anxious to address the Court. She submits that Muhammad Imtiaz is a beast who did not show any respect to the kindness, shown by her as she engaged his rickshaw about a year before the occurrence to pick and drop her sister Mst. Uzma Tabbasum, who was a. Student of law; the petitioner is an accused in equal degree like his co-accused so he may not be released on bail.
8. After having heard all concerned and perused the record it is observed that the petitioner was well-known to the other side as is evident from the statement of the complainant, who, is annoyed and dejected because of the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence. The question, however, arises, if the petitioner had taken part in the incident and he was known to the complainant side earlier, why he had not been nominated as an accused by the complainant, at the time of reporting the crime to the police. One thing is certain that the statement of the complainant reflects on the utility of the evidence of test identification parade. The complainant and her sister Mst. Uzma Tabbasum being well acquainted with the petitioner long before the occurrence, could easily pick the petitioner correctly at the test identification parade, which they did accordingly. Further comments upon the legality or validity of the aforesaid of evidence at this stage may prejudice the case of the parties, therefore, it is left for the trial Court to determine as to its admissibility at trial. The petitioner underwent maximum period of physical remand, permissible under the law but this period of time remained barren. Mere heinousness of offence cannot be deemed a ground to decline the right of an accused to be granted bail if his case is covered by the efficacy of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner prima facie falls in the said category.
9. Resultantly,' the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.