' Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Dilshad Ahmed petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 164/14, dated 24.06.2014 registered at Police Station Piplan, District Mianwali in respect of offences under Sections 395/412, PPC.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has been introduced in this case through a supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant on 10.09.2014, after two months and six days of the occurrence and that too without any source. Admittedly no test identification parade has been held in this case so as to positively connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence. As a result of investigation it has come on record that the petitioner has been providing information to his co-accused to facilitate them to commit dacoity on the shop of the complainant. Three co-accused of the petitioner namely Imtiaz, Javed Iqbal and Muhammad Muneeb with the same role had already been allowed bail and the only distinguishable feature in the cases of above-mentioned co-accused and that of the present petitioner is that the latter has got recovered gold whereas nothing was recovered from the above-mentioned co-accused. In this context I may observe here that effecting of recovery from an accused does not by itself create any hurdle in the way of discretionary relief especially when the accused otherwise made case of post-arrest bail after creating doubt in prosecution story.
Even otherwise the worth and penitentiary value of such type of recovery is to be considered by the learned trial Court at the time ot trial after recording of evidence because so for the prosecution is not sure that it was none else but the petitioner who along with his co-accused entered into the shop of the complainant and looted the recovered articles. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail. The petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, he is behind the bars since 22.10.2014, investigation qua the petitioner is complete, the person of the petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner has make out his case on the basis of rule of consistency as well as that of further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section C" 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.