1. ' The petitioner Maskeen Ali has applied for post-arrest hail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.1.73, dated 2-6-1989 under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station Tatlay Aali District Gujranwala.
2. ' According to F.I.R. The complainant Ghulam Dastgir was sleeping in his Haveli on 2-6-1989 alongwith other persons near his cattle while at 4-00 a.m. 7 persons with muffled faces who were armed with deadly weapons entered the Haveli and woke him up. These persons deprived the complainant of' certain currency notes and a Seiko watch. They also took away 8 of his buffaloes.
3. ' It is the case of the prosecution that the stolen property was taken away in Truck No.1603-SA, which broke down on its way and the aforesaid persons left the same and subsequently the buffaloes were found nearby grazing in the fields The police took the truck and the buffaloes into possession. However, on 27-6-1989 the owner of the truck made a statement that the present petitioner who was his driver told him that on the alleged day of occurrence i.e. 2-6-1989 some persons had taken away the aforesaid truck. Initially the owner namely, Tayyab Mehmood tried himself to locate his truck and subsequently he approached the police authorities for the redressed of his grievances. There, according to his statement, on the information of certain persons, whose names have not been disclosed by the aforesaid Tayyab Mehmood, he involved the present petitioner in the commission of this dacoity. The case of the prosecution is that on that very day the custody of the present petitioner was handed over by the aforesaid Tayyab Mahmood to the police authorities.
4. ' Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been arrested in a mala fide manner and was kept for a considerable time in illegal confinement. Subsequently he had been detained in the aforesaid case for no fault of his own. He has further contended that no incriminating articles have been recovered from the petitioner. The learned counsel has argued that no identification of the petitioner was held in spite of the fact that the complainant has specifically mentioned in the F.I.R.
5. That he could recognise the culprit.
6. ' The learned State counsel is not in a position to controvert the stance taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. I have considered the arguments of the parties. It is regrettable that the petitioner is in jail for the last two months without any basis. The investigation of this case has not been conducted in a bona fide manner. I have been told by the D.S.P. That initially the case was investigated by Muhammad Hanif A.S.I. As well as by Qamar-uz-Zaman, Inspector but none of whom has bothered to get the petitioner identified in accordance with law. The D.S.P. Failed to bring out any evidence to my notice except the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of the owner of the truck which too was recorded after more than 25 days of the alleged occurrence in which he has shown suspicion respecting the petitioner without disclosing the source therefor. In the circumstances I am of the view that there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner presently with the commission of the alleged occurrence. His case falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Hence I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.
8. ' A copy of this order be sent to S.S.P., Gujranwala, who shall look into the matter and report why the investigation of this case particularly identification of the petitioner was not held as required under the law. The report be sent to this Court before 5th of September, 1989, on which date case be listed for further proceedings.