' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 216, dated 17-8-2012, under sections 392, 397, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Raja Jang, District Kasur.
2. Precisely the facts of the case as narrated by Muhammad Rafiq (complainant) are that he along with his other family members slept at various places, inside his house, at night on 16-8-2012; it was at 11.00 p.m. When 15 unknown armed accused got into his house by scaling over its wall and rendered all inmates of the house hostages; his mother, brothers Rasheed Ahmad and Muhammad Sarwar resisted whereon they were tortured by them; they confined all of them in a room, snatched keys from them at gun point and looted cash, gold ornaments, unstitched cloth, cell phones, passports, valid visas, driving licences, wrist watches and some armory etc., from his house, which they took away with them; the accused were of mixed height, structure and complexion.
3. The complainant rendered a supplementary statement on 7-9-2012 with the contention that he, on his own, searched for the accused and learnt through reliable sources that the crime was committed by Saleem alias Major, Munir, Mustafa, Riaz (petitioner), Liaqat Ali, Niamat, Rafi and Riaz Ahmad. Riaz accused was arrested in this case on 9-9-2012 whereafter he led to the recovery of certain articles, including an iron, hair dryer, torch, juicer machine, Rado watch, six unstitched suits and single barrel .12 bore licensed gun on various dates i,e, 17-9-2012, 19-9-2012 and 21-9-2012. The investigating officer prepared a memo of identification of the recovered articles on 23-9-2012.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant merely on suspicion and mode of his nomination as an accused, through a supplementary statement, is not approved by law; the complainant has not disclosed the source of his knowledge through which he learnt about the implication of the petitioner in this case; the I.O.
Has planted even those articles on the petitioner, which have not been mentioned in the F.I.R.; the petitioner was falsely involved by the police in certain other cases as well but he stands bailed out in all of those cases.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes with the contention that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence which has been termed by the courts an offence against the society; a number of looted articles were got recovered by the petitioner during the course of investigation which were duly identified by the complainant and I.O. Prepared a memo of identification in this regard on 23-9-2012; the I.O.
Added section 412, P.P.C. During the course of investigation which also falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that details of the alleged occurrence are hair-raising, as a band of dacoits, 15 in number, almost swept across the entire house of the complainant, which fact can be found from the contents of the F.I.R. Gold ornaments weighing 50 tolas worth lacs of rupees, hot-cash amounting to Rs,20 lacs, licenced firearms with ammunition, cell phones loaded with SIMS, passports, driving licences, A valid visas, DVD player, juicer machine, unstitched clothes, registration books of two cars, a couple of Rado wrist-watches, the revenue record and what not, snatched and taken away by the dacoits at gunpoint. Mere fact that the complainant nominated the petitioner, through a supplementary statement, without disclosing source of knowledge cannot be considered a circumstance, going in favour of the accused-petitioner for the reason that he, like his co-accused, led to the recovery of some of the crime articles, duly identified by the complainant in presence of witnesses which led to addition of section 412 P.P.C., during the course B of investigation. A memo of identification qua the recovered articles has also been prepared by the investigating officer. Non-holding of test identification parade may be an irresponsible and insane act of the police, but, does it mean that the complainant should suffer and pay a price for it, the answer to which is a certain 'NO'. The alleged recovery, at the instance of the petitioner constitutes an offence under section 412 P.P.C.
Which is punishable with imprisonment for life, thus falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The complainant and his co-witnesses, on the factum of recovery of snatched goods, still support the prosecution case. The petitioner has history of involvement in seven other cases of identical nature which shows his inclination towards being a desperate character. Mere non- conviction of the accused-petitioner in the past for any crime is no ground .By itself to release him on bail. Guidance in this regard may be had from Afzaal's case reported as 2003 SCM R 573. No such grounds have been shown to exist in this case that the accused-petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail on account of the reasons mentioned in section 497(2) Cr.P.C., which could convince this court to allow him bail.
7. In view of the discussion, made hereinabove, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed accordingly.