' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J. -- This is the 2nd petition on behalf of Ghulam Hussain alias Gullu, petitioner seeking his release on bail in case F.I.R. No, 115/2012, dated 7.2.2012 for the offence under Sections 392/411, PPC registered at Police Station City Jaranwala, District Faisalabad.
His earlier petition (Crl. Misc. No, 16688 B/2012) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.11.2012.
2. Said was got registered by Zafar lqbal son of Muhammad Hassan, complainant alleging therein that on 6.2.2012 at 7.30 p.m., two unknown accused who were armed with pistols came at the shop of the complainant and on gun point took away cash, body-perfume, etc.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case due to male fide of the complainant in connivance with the local police; that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and he has been involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant which too was brought on the record after a considerable delay; that the alleged recovery at the instance of the petitioner is planted one as the said recovered articles are easily available in the open-market; that the identification parade conducted in this case has no evidentiary value as the complainant himself made statement before the Magistrate to the effect that he alongwith his salesman namely Sheraz visited the Police Station and saw the accused; that the co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted post-arrest bail by the Judicial Magistrate on the basis of affidavit of the complainant exonerating the co-accused, thus, keeping' in view the rule of consistency, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG submits that although the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. yet he has been identified .by Sheraz one of the eye-witness of the occurrence in the identification parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate and the looted articles have been recovered from the petitioner, thus, he is not entitled to the concession of bail:
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant. The proceedings of the identification parade onducted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad on 8.3.2012 have been placed on record as Annexure-E, according to which the complainant and his salesman namely . Shehraz participated in the proceedings; the' complainant made statement before the Magistrate that he did not see the accused at the time of occurrence and when the accused were arrested he (complainant) and Sheraz went to the Havalat of the Police Station and identified them as their accused, meaning thereby the complainant and said Sehraz saw the accused before the identification parade. Thus, the identification of the petitioner by said Sheraz during the identification proceedings prima facie is of no legal value. Even otherwise, the co-accused of the petitioner whose role is at par with the petitioner has already been granted post-arrest bail by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaranwala keeping in view the affidavit of the complainant whereby the co-accused has been exonerated from the case. Thus, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail on the basis of rule of consistency. Even otherwise, the articles recovered from the petitioner are of common natures which are easily available in the market. Petitioner is in incarceration since the date of his arrest, investigation to the extent of the petitioner is complete and he is no more required to the police for further investigation. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
7. The said circumstances, prima facie, are sufficient to call for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner entitling him to be admitted to post-arrest bail. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.