The Petitioner Namely Parvez has filed his post arrest bail in case FIR No, 181/2012 'dated 01.04.2012 under Sections 458, 392, 397, and 411, PPC registered with Police Station City Arifwala District Pakpattan.
2. The prosecution story as per FIR is that on 14.02.2012 at about 7:00 p.m. the petitioner alongwith his co-accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and committed robbery and looted away motorcycle bearing Registration No, SLK-1852, cash amounting to Rs, 10,000/-, two mobile phones, gold ornaments amounting to Rs,50,000/- and some other household articles. The complainant kept on searching the accused himself and later he came to know about the present petitioner alongwith three other co-accused while in custody with Police Station Saddar Arifwala have admitted about the above said occurrence therefore, the complainant visited the Saddar Police Station alongwith witnesses and identified the accused. Hence, this FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case with mala fide intention; there is delay of about 1 month and 18 days in lodging the FIR and no explanation has been given, it is not clear how the complainant came to know about the alleged admission of the petitioner about the commission of offence when the matter was not even reported to police. The alleged recovery of motor cycle is attributed to three accused which makes this case further enquiry. Further submits that the recovery has been made from locked house on presentation of keys by the accused persons. When the petitioner and others were in custody then from where they have got the keys of the house is not 'mentioned. No incriminating material against the petitioner is available on record. The petitioner is behind the bare for last one year.
Challan has been submitted but not a single PW has been summoned recorded. Any further detention of the petitioner would consider as punishment before conclusion of the trial. No apprehension of the petitioner for tempering with the prosecution evidence, if the petitioner is released on bail.
4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General while opposing the petition submits that petitioner has been named in the FIR with the specific allegation of committing robbery on gun point. The stolen motor cycle was recovered on the pointation of the petitioner. PWs have corroborated the allegations levelled by the complainant while recording their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C.
The petitioner is a previous record holder of similar offences. The case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. The learned Additional Prosecutor General could not satisfy with regard to the delay in registration of FIR. Further it is not clear as to houses. the complainant came to know about the alleged admission of the petitioner regarding the alleged robbery reported by the complainant in this FIR. In this view of the matter, the case of the petitioner has become of further enquiry.
Moreover, the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year. Although challah has been submitted but not even one PWs has been recorded.
In this view of the matter, the petitioner is admitted to bail 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 the learned trial Court.