1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal in the above petition against the order of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 16-10- 1994 whereby the learned Judge declined to grant bail to the petitioner in a case registered against him under section 379, P.P.C. Read with section 114/6/79, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 read with section 382/411, P.P.C. (F.I.R. No,57 dated 21-3- 1994 Police Station New Town, Rawalpindi)., We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State Counsel and' converted this petition into appeal and it is disposed of as follows.
2. ' Mst. Pervin Ishtiq, the complainant in the case lodged F.I.R. Against the petitioner and three others on 21-3-1994 wherein she alleged that at about 07-15 hours while she was going towards Katarian in front of Malian school through 6th Road, and reached in the middle of park she noticed for boys coming towards her. One of these boys while passing by the complainant snatched her purse on which she raised alarm. All the four boys, thereupon, ran towards Katarain Market. The ages of these boys were shown between 20 to 25 years. She gave details of the contents of the purse which was snatched from her in her report. However, no description of the accused persons was given except their ages, in the F.I.R. Lodged on 21-3-1994. We issued notice to the State when this case came up for hearing before us on 6-12-1994 to ascertain whether the appellant was put to identification parade after his arrest in the case. The learned State Counsel who appeared in response to the notice, has stated before us that no identification parade was held in the case.
3. However, in a further statement which was recorded in the case the complainant has named the appellant and that some of the articles mentioned in the F.I.R. Were also recovered from his possession. The learned State Counsel read the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded in the case but this statement did not disclose as to how the complainant came to know the name of the appellant when in fact she was neither known to the appellant nor she disclosed his name in the F.I.R. Lodged in the case. We are, therefore, of the view that at this stage, it cannot be said that the accused is reasonably believed to have committed the offence which fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and admit the appellant to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.