S.M.ZUBAIR, J. - The petitioner who is involved in case FIR No.35 of 1996, dated 21.1.1996 under Section 394 PPC read with Section 17 of Ordinance VI of 1979 registered at Police Station Chiniot City District Jhang, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. According to FIR, Muhammad Amal and Muzaffar entered the house of the complainant and threatened Muhammad Islam, brother of the complainant to hand over to them whatever he possessed. Muhammad Islam tried to snatch away the pistol from Muhammad Amal whereupon Muzaffar caught hold Muhammad Islam from his back. Muhammad Amal fired at shot with pistol and injured Muhammad Islam on left side of his belly and while crossing hit the left leg of Muzaffar and he was caught by the residents of the locality and Muhammad Amal made good his escape.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not a nominated accused, the matter was reported to the Police on 21.1.1996 whereas by way of supplementary statement allegedly recorded at the instance of the complainant on 12.3.1996, the name of the petitioner was introduced as an accused. There is no legal evidence so far available on the record to connect the petitioner with the crime except this that the dacoity was committed at the behest of the petitioner and this evidence is being supported by the recovery of .30 bore pistol at the instance of Muhammad Amal, co-accused. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner depends upon the extra-judicial confession which the petitioner allegedly made before certain witnesses. In the presence of this material, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry as it would be determined after the recording of detailed evidence whether the petitioner is involved in this case or not.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the police officer has opposed this petition on the ground that the dacoity was committed in the house of the complainant at the behest of the petitioner who was his ex- employee and he furnished information to the dacoits who were apprehended at the spot. From the house of the petitioner, .30 bore pistol was recovered at the instance of Muhammad Amal, co-accused and that bail application of Muzaffar, co-accused, was dismissed vide Cr.Misc.No.l597/B of 1996. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner nominated accused. After the recovery of pistol at the instance of Muhammad Amal, co-accused from the house of the petitioner, the complainant made a belated supplementary statement on 12.3.1996 in which he alleged the dacoity was committed at the behest of the petitioner who had some grievance against the complainant being his servant. This fact was never disclosed by the complainant prior to the recovery of pistol mentioned above.
Whether the evidence so far brought on record is sufficient to sustain conviction or not would be decided after the recording of detailed evidence by the learned trial Court. The case against the petitioner is, thus, one of further inquiry. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.