'The petitioner through the present petition has sought post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,475 of 1996 dated , 8-11-1996 under section 397, P.P.C., read with section 17 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979 at Police Station "A" Division, Kasur.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the complainant appearing with permission of the Court, were heard at length in respect of the contentions stated herein. The present bail petition was opposed by the learned counsel for the State and the complainant on the ground that the petitioner had been identified pursuant to identification parade held and as such, is not entitled to bail.
However, in that respect, the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner is duly taken notice of i,e, that at the time of the alleged identification of the petitioner pursuant to identification parade held, it was neither specifically stated by the P.Ws. Concerned that the petitioner had participated in the occurrence alleged nor was it recorded that the petitioner was the person who had wrongly stated his name to be one of the names as stated in the F.I.R. To support his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance upon 1988 SCM R 557, 1985 SCM R 721, PLJ 1974 Cr.0 (Lah.) 208, 1992 SCM R 1933, 1993 PCr.LJ 1373, 1993 PCr.LJ 726, 1978 PCr.LJ. 176 and 1994 PCr.LJ 626. It has been further taken notice of that under the offence alleged i,e, under section 397, P.P.C. The punishment is seven years whereas under Haraba, during the commission whereof no property is taken away, the sentence to be awarded is not less than three years, and that therefore, the case of the petitioner is not hit by the prohibitory clause; as it has been confirmed on behalf of the State that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner nor on his pointing out. Therefore, prima facie the provisions of law under Haraba as stated above may apply to the case of the petitioner, it is tentatively held. It was further confirmed on behalf of the State that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for over six months and is no longer required by the police and that he is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal. Therefore, it is hereby held that under the facts and circumstances highlighted, the case of the petitioner is duly covered under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Consequently, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs,50,000- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court concerned.