Through this petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.697/14, dated 11.11.2014 registered at Police Station Bhowana, District Chiniot in respect of of fences under Sections 395, 412 PPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is allowed at this stage . It has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has been involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement, got recorded by the complainant after the delay of one month and nine days from the date of occurrence. The complainant has not advanced any plausible justification for this inordinate delay and even he has not mentioned any source of information on the basis of which he came to know about involvement of the petitioner in the instant case. Admittedly no identification parade was conducted in this case which is a mandatory provision when the accused is not named in the FIR. Reliance can easily be placed upon 1997 SCMR 971. Admittedly , co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Irfan and Muhammad Bakhsh have already been allowed bail after arrest by the Court of learned Magistrate Section-30, Bhowana vide orders dated 13.01.2015 and 27.01.2015. Since the provisions of offence under Section 395 PPC impose conjoint liability on all the accused, so keeping in view the rule of consistency , the petitioner is also entitled for the same treatment. The evidentiary value of the recoveries, allegedly effected from the petitioner , shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. The petitioner is previous non-con vict. He is behind the bars since 04.01.2015 without any fruitful progress in his trial. The investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. So, his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise the accused becomes entitled to the concession of bail.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub- section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petitio n is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.