Apprehending his arrest at the hands of police, the petitioner seeks his pre-arrest bail in case FIR No,636/2011, dated 17.11.2011, offence under Sections 457, 380, PPC, registered with Police Station, Chochak, District Okara.
2. Brief allegation against the petitioner as per contents of FIR is that two months prior to lodging of the FIR, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused committed theft of two buffalos of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances with malafides. It is submitted that there is delay of two months in lodging the FIR which has not been explained by the prosecution. Learned counsel contends that the incriminating material so far collected by the Investigation Officer against the petitioner are only the statements of Arif, co- accused and others to the effect that the petitioner is also accomplice of their gang and is also involved in the case in hand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that statement of the co- accused cannot be taken into consideration against the present petitioner. It is argued that though the petitioner is also involved in another case of similar nature, but the same was registered only ten days prior to lodging of the case in hand. Learned counsel next submits that the story advanced in the FIR does not sound sense. It is argued that the offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibition contained in Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Learned counsel lastly argued that sending the petitioner behind the bars would serve no useful purpose.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition. It is contended that the petitioner is well nominated in the FIR with a specific role i,e, he alongwith his co-accused has deprived the complainant from his two buffalos by committing theft. It is submitted that the petitioner is also involved in another case of similar nature. Moreover pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief and the same can be granted sparingly. However, learned Deputy Prosecutor General frankly conceded that no incriminating material is available against the petitioner except the statement of co-accused of the petitioner.
5. Arguments advanced from all corners have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
6. There is no denial to this factum that the petitioner is named in the FIR, however, I am afraid this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances that whether case against the petitioner to the extent of grant of relief sought for is 'made out or not. The complainant has got registered the case in hand with the delay of two months, but failed to render any plausible justification in this regard.
No incriminating material is available on the record against the petitioner except the statements of his co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. Though the petitioner is involved in another case of similar nature, but the same was registered only ten days prior to lodging of the case in hand and as such the petitioner has no conviction to his credit. Liberty of a person is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and that cannot be snatched on the basis of flimsy grounds. Moreover, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner in jail.
7. For the foregoing reasons, by allowing this petition ad-interim t bail already granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 07.03.2012 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.