According to a case registered under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, on 20-10-1982, vide F. I. R. No. 343/82 at Police Station Muridke, the complainant who was a manager of Mst. Nadira Begum, was in a room attached to the tube-well.
He was enjoying the radio when on the barking of the dog he came out and faced five persons who were armed with guns, revolver, pistol, respectively, and the last one was possessing a takwa. He asked them as to the purpose of their coming there on which he was told that they were in search -of their lost buffalo and wanted him to assist for that. Then one out of the five put a cloth from behind round his neck and with the help of another twisted it which resulted in a heavy suffocation, thereupon the third man gave him blows with the butt of his gun on his shoulder and upper arm.
Then another man gave him a blow with the butt on his chest as a result of which darkness appeared in his eyes. Then those persons took up the tape-record, nine pairs of wearing clothes, six bed-sheets, a wrist watch and Rs. 10,00 in cash, from the room belonging to the complainant and Rs. 18,00 were taken out of his pocket.
2. The petitioner alongwith others was arrested on 13-11-1982. He was refused bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, on 13-12-1982.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no personal description about the dacoits is given in the F. I. R. An identi--fication parade was held, though it was alleged that the co- accused of the petitioner were identified but according to the petitioner as to him no such parade was held, so in these circumstances he has urged for bail of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the State hue, in reply, submitted that during the investigation co- accused Arif, Saif, Zulfiqar and Ilyas, made a disclosure that the petitioner was also alongwith them.
A dhoti of the complainant and Rs. 5,00 were recovered during the investigation from the petitioner.
According to the learned counsel this is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence as stated in the F. I. R.
5. The prosecution, so as to connect the petitioner with the offence has relied upon the circumstantial evidence and it is a well-settled principle that if there is no direct evidence and the material is only as to the circumstantial evidence, then a case necessarily fails due as a case for further inquiry as to the guilt so as to attract the provisions of subsection (2) of section) 497, Cr. P.
C. The petitioner is therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura.