The Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 133/2017 dated 30-03-2017 that was registered against him at Police Station City Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, for offences under Sections 395/397/412, PPC.
2. As per FIR, the prosecution case is that on 30-03-2017 at about 3:30 a.m. four armed persons with muffled faces broke into the house of the Complainant and robbed him of 10 tolas of gold and cash amounting to Rs, 2,44,000/-. Thereafter, they went in the upper portion of the house which the Complainant had rented out to Ziarat Jatt and robbed him of Rs, 1,50,000/- cash and gold ornaments. When the accused were leaving the place they came across Tanvir, one of the neighbours of the Complainant and robbed him as well and took away Rs, 16,000/- that he was carrying.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. It is observed that FIR No, 133/2017, supra, was registered against four unknown persons who had muffled their faces. On 27-05-2017. i,e, about two months after the alleged occurrence, the Complainant got recorded a supplementary statement to the effect that actually five unknown persons committed dacoity in his house. Even at that time he did not nominate the Petitioner in this case.
4. The Petitioner was arrested in case FIR No, 231/2017 registered at Police Station City Chichawatni, for offences under Sections 399/402, PPC. According to the prosecution, he made certain disclosures whereupon an identification test parade was held in which the Complainant identified him. The alleged identification is open to question because it is the prosecution's own case that the accused had muffled their faces. Possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
5. The learned Law Officer contended that a pair of gold earrings and Rs, 30,000/- cash were recovered from the Petitioner which connected him with the offence. Perusal of the record reveals that there is no identification memo. of the gold earrings. As regards the , corroborative evidence, such recovery by itself is not sufficient to incriminate a person. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Rafique v. The State" (1997 SCM R 412).
6. In view of what has been discussed above, further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. is required to determine the Petitioner's guilt. He was arrested in this case on 16-06-2017. The investigation of the case has been concluded and he is not required by the police for any further probe. No useful purpose would be served in keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period particularly when the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The Petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 500,000/-(Rupees five hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.