' Muhammad Altaf, the petitioner-accused seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 08/15 dated 09.01.2015, offence under .Sections 395, 382 & 412, PPC, registered at Police Station Miran Pur, District Vehari.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story as per FIR is that on 03.01.2015, the petitioner/accused hired the Riksha of the complainant on rent, while during the journey, petitioner/accused along with four other co-accused persons after tiding the complainant, snatched his Riksha along with not cash Rs. 1050 & National Identity Card and committed dacoity with the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Deputy Prosecutor General for the State has been heard. Record perused.
4. It has been noticed that the name of the petitioner is not figured in the FIR. He was introduced through supplementary statement of the complainant dated 16.01.2015, but no source of identification has been mentioned therein. Learned law officer present in Court pointed out that the petitioner/accused has also involved in different cases of similar nature. Suffice to say that the cousin of the present petitioner namely Mazhar Hussain filed an application under Section 491 of, Cr.P.C. For the recovery of present petitioner from the clutches of Police Station Luddan, District Vehari on 18.02.2015 and in that petition the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari observed that the petitioner has wrongly arrested in case FIR No. 36/12 and on his intervention case was cancelled but subsequently, the petitioner was shown to be arrested in the present case on 27.02.2015 without any overt act qua the petitioner.
5. Muhammad Rasheed, the complainant of this case put his appearance and on Court query he frankly stated that the recovery alleged to be shown from the present petitioner is wrong as the Investigating Officer ihformed him that his Riksha (Case Property) has already been recovered and present at Police Station.
6. It has also been observed by this Court that the Investigating Officer of the instant case made some dishonest padding while introducing fictitious and wrong facts as mentioned above.
7. As no identification parade has been held and the present petitioner egonerated in the previous cases by the complainant on the intervention of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari. Nothing is to be recovered from the present petitioner. Investigation has been completed, Challan has been submitted and the trial of the present petitioner is not far away as the petitioner make out a case of further inquiry, therefore, his further incarceration for indefinite period without conclusion of. The trial would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution. Even otherwise the petitioner has successfully made out the case of further inquiry, which also falls within the ambit of sub-section
(2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted as a result whereof, the petitioner admitted to bail after arrest, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The observations made in the instant petition are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either of the parties.