Through this petition the petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 130 dated 24.3.2012 registered under Sections 458/ 395/397/412, P.P.C. at Police Station Qabola, Pakpattan.
2. Statedly the occurrence took place on 10.2.2012 at 6:00 p.m. and the matter was reported to the police on 24.3.2012 at 8:00 p.m. i,e, after fourteen days. In F.I.R. it was stated that the petitioner alongwith four nominated persons while armed with fire-arms entered the house of the complainant and on gun point took away his mobile phone, mobile phone of his wife and four wrist watches, Rs, 14,000/-, silver ornaments and gold rings.
The petitioner was arrested on 14.4.2012 and during investigation he got recovered gold rings, gold necklace and 'cash.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was registered after unexplained delay of fifteen days in which name, parentage and residence of the petitioner and other accused are duly mentioned and there is no reason why so many persons entered the house of the complainant although they were knew him; that it is not clearly mentioned that any necklace was taken away but same has been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner is behind the bars and is no more required to police for further investigation and as such the petitioner is entitled to bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned law officer submits that the petitioner is duly nominated in the F.I.R. and after arrest he got recovered stolen articles and as such he is not entitled to any exception.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The F.I.R. was registered after delay of fourteen days and no reason for such delay is available on record. All the accused were known to the complainant and they were duly named as accused in the F.I.R. The petitioner was arrested on 11.4.2012 and since then he is behind the bars and trial has not been concluded. There is no previous record of the petitioner available on police file. Recovered articles were not identified by the complainant and eye-witness. It will be seen after recording of evident whether recovered articles were the same which were stolen at the relevant time. The petitioner has got no previous record. He is first offender. While considering that recovered articles were not identified by the complainant and the witnesses and also keeping in mind that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than a year and trial has not been concluded, I think that the petitioner has made out a case for bail. He cannot be detained in jail for indefinite period. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 3,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.