SIKANDAR ZULQARNAIN SALEEM, J.-Despite service, complainant has not entered his appearance.
2. Through the instant petition, Ashiq Hussain alias Irshad alias Shaad-petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,331 dated 13-7-2013, under sections 395/397/458, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.
2.(sic.) Brief facts of the instant case are that intervening the night 8/9-7-2013, about 1/2 night, petitioner along with other co-accused persons trespassed in the Thata' of the complainant and at gun point succeeded in taking away three buffaloes belonging to the complainant. On the very next day, through some reliable sources, the complainant came to know that Muhammad Niaz along with others had done the occurrence, who also disclosed the names of the co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. Was lodged against unknown culprits and the petitioner has been associated on the statement of co-accused; that no source of information has been mentioned in the F.I.R.; petitioner has not been put to the test of identification parade; nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. Further contends that the petitioner is behind the bars and is no more required by the police for further investigation. Lastly prayed that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General vehemently opposed the bail petition and contended that the petitioner was specifically named in the F.I.R and his name was disclosed by the co-accused Muhammad Niaz; that the petitioner is also involved in some other cases of alike nature. Lastly prayed for its dismissal.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. After a careful perusal of record, it found that the petitioner has been associated in this case on the basis of statement of co-accused, which has no value in the eye of law as no source of information has been mentioned that where from and how the petitioner came to know about the involvement of the petitioner in this case. The petitioner was not subjected to the test of identification parade which was necessary in this case. In the case of `Walayat v. The State' reported as (PLD 2008 Lahore 470), it was held that the Investigating Officer of such like nature cases must put the accused to identification parade and shall also identify the recovered articles from the owners but the same is lacking in this case. The relevant portion of the above mentioned judgment is reproduced here under:-- "(6) It has become a general tendency in Punjab that in cases of unknown accused the Investigating Officer intentionally avoid to get arranged the identification parade after their arrest.
They had made it routine to record supplementary statements of the eye-witnesses containing the fact that they had come to know from reliable source that the persons mentioned in their statements are their accused. They do not mention the source of said information> On the basis of these baseless statements they effect the arrest of the accused persons considering the above mentioned statements as substitution of valuable evidence of identification parade, which is factually incorrect. After recoveries they send the accused to judicial lock up. Even the legal source of converting these recoveries to stolen property is being ignored, which is the height of the negligence of duty on the part of the Investigating Officer.
(7) The cases of Qatl-i-amd, robbery and dacoity are being spoiled by adopting the above stated mode and the habitual dacoits or robbers are being let off. It is a serious affair. The senior officer of the police department are keeping their eyes shut over this serious matter. The prosecution branch is also silent on this serious matter."
The stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no evidence exists showing petitioner's participation in the alleged dacoity and very absence of above evidence puts the case against the petitioner within the domain of further inquiry and reasonable grounds do not exist to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence under sections 395/397, P.P.C. Moreover, the petitioner remained on physical remand but nothing has been recovered from his possession. The petitioner is behind the bars since 21-7-2013 and his further incarceration would be nothing but a punishment without trial which is not the intention of law.
7. Hence, in view of above, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000 (One lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.