Through this petition, Mohsin petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case FIR. No, 501 dated 3.12.2011 registered under Sections 397/412/459/380/337-F(v)/337-A(iii)/337-H(1)/337-L2, P.P.C. at Police Station Rajowa, District Chiniot.
2. The case was registered in respect of an occurrence which took place in the night between 5/6.10.2011 at 8 a.m. and the case was reported on 3.12.2012 i,e, after delay of two months. In the F.I.R. it was stated that the petitioner along with five nominated and two unknown persons while armed with firearms entered house of the complainant and committed dacoity and in that process, they gave injuries to one Sajjad son of the complainant who was medically examined on the same day.
In the dacoity Rs, 80,000/-, seven tolas gold ornaments, paper of the tractor, identity card and other things were taken away. It was also mentioned in the F.I.R. that the accused were allow identified by Murtaza and Mama who saw them while coming from house of the complainant and the accused confessed before them that they had committed dacoity and are ready to return the stolen articles. The complainant contacted one Mazhar and other accused who promised to return the stolen articles but ultimately they refused and as such the case was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is unexplained delay of two months in lodging of the F.I.R.; although name of the accused was known to the complainant and one Sajjad was medically examined but no case was registered for a long two months that the petitioner was arrested on 8.1.2012 and during investigation Rs, 17,500/ was recovered from him statedly which were brought from his house along with a carbine; that such recovery is planted which does not connect the petitioner with the commission of crime; that no description of the accused was mentioned in the F.I.R. and there was no identification parade conducted to identify their role or their involvement in this matter; that the petitioner was minor at the relevant time; he was statedly of 15 years of age and in this respect learned counsel has submitted copy of his school leaving certificate; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than nine months and is no more required for any further investigation; the petitioner being minor is entitled to certain exception and his involvement in this case is highly doubtful.
4. On the other hand learned Law Officer assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail petition by submitting that the petitioner is duly named in the F.I.R.; delay of two months in lodging of the F.I.R. has duly been explained by the complainant; that Rs, 17,500/- was recovered from the petitioner during investigation; that four other co-accused are still at large and the petitioner is involved in two other cases of similar nature and as such he is not entitled to any exception.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is the prosecution case that name of the accused was known to the complainant on the very same day of the occurrence. The injured was medically examined on the same day but the matter was not reported to police for long period of two months. No reason for such long delay has been brought on record. Only Rs, 17,500/- was recovered from the petitioner and no other stolen property was recovered from him. The petitioner was statedly minor at the time of occurrence. There is nothing on record to indicate that he is a previous convict. The petitioner is behind the bars and is no more required to police for any further investigation. Further detention of the petitioner in jail will not serve any useful purpose and it will be seen after recording of evidence as to what extent the petitioner is liable.
6. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing 'bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.