Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner Muhammad Arslan alias Shan has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 41/2017 dated 15.02.2017 under Sections 496-A, 376, PPC, Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal.
2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. It is noticed by this Court that although the petitioner is named in the FIR, yet the fact remains that there is delay of five days in registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie reflects that the FIR has been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation. The allegation against the petitioner is that he kidnapped Yasmin and her son, Bhabhi and nephew of complainant for ransom. Initially the FIR was lodged under Section 496-A, PPC but during investigation the offence under Section 376, PPC was added. It is noticed by this Court that allegedly according to the prosecution case at the time of recovery of alleged victim on the same day at 3.30 a.m (night) she was given some intoxication by the accused but there is no medical evidence in this regard. I have also carefully gone through the MLR of the victim and according to her MLR there is no mark of violence on any part of her body. The report of Forensic Science Agency regarding DNA test is still awaited. During investigation, it has come on record that the petitioner was previously driving the rickshaw of complainant party for the last three years and now the petitioner has purchased his own rickshaw, if this fact is considered with the touch stone of five days delay in lodging the FIR, prima facie some foul play erupts from the prosecution story which created doubt and it can safely be held that occurrence has not taken place as narrated by the complainant. The petitioner is previous non- convicts and never involved in any other case. He is behind the bars since 20.02.2017 without any fruitful progress in his trial. Nobody can be kept in jail for an indefinite period. Investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars, thus, his further incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
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 petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- 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.