' A case under section 392, P.P.C., read with section 17, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 is registered against the petitioner and others on the ground that they entered the house of the complainant namely Khalil Ahmad aged about 62/63 years being a retired employee of WAPDA. At the relevant time, the complainant was all alone in the house. The petitioner along with two others got the door of the house opened by ringing the call bell. They caught hold the complainant by his neck and took him to a room of the house after inserting the barrel of the pistol in his mouth. They demanded keys of rooms of the house and also directed him to point out the places, where the cash, ornaments and other valuable were lying. They succeeded in breaking the locks of the rooms and took out a cash amount of Rs,200,000 prize bonds valuing Rs,1,51,000 and about 80 Tolas of golden ornaments besides robbing the watches and some other articles. They locked the complainant in the store of the house who was got released from there by inmates of the house after they returned to home at about 3-00 p.m. From their working place.
Though the petitioner and his co-accused were not named in the F.I.R., but their physical description was given by the complainant while lodging the report. Later on, they were identified when they were arrested and their photographs were published in the newspaper.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case against the petitioner is very doubtful as he had not been properly got identified through the regular identification parade; that one of the co accused is still absconder and there is no likelihood that the investigation will be completed, in the near future or the case will be sent to the Court for trial; that the petitioner was involved in the case on account of misunderstanding and through mistake. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner was arrested above five months back and as such was also entitled to bail particularly when the investigation was not yet complete. Reliance was placed on Abbas v. The State reported as 1988 PCr.LJ 1696 (Lahore), Anwar Saeed and others v. State cited as 1989 PCr.LJ 1863 (Lahore), Hafiz Zameer Hussain v. The State reported as 1994 PCr.LJ 734 (Karachi) and Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan cited as PLD 1976 Supreme Court 57.
3. The petition is opposed on the ground that some of the looted money and articles were recovered from the petitioner thereby linking him with the occurrence; that the petitioner was properly identified by the complainant after his photo was published in the newspaper on his arrest in some other case, thereupon, the complainant informed the police that he was the same culprit who had committed the offence along with his co-accused and as such, there was no doubt regarding the identification of the petitioner. The Investigating Officer has submitted that due to absconding of one of the co-accused, the submission of report under section 173, Cr.P.C., has been delayed although the challan has already been prepared against the arrested accused including the petitioner.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions from both the sides. Though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., but has been properly identified by the complainant after photograph of the petitioner was published in a newspaper on his arrest in another case. Hence, prima facie it will have no force for the limited purpose of bail particularly when some of the looted money and articles have been recovered from the petitioner during the investigation of this case. The mere fact that one of the co-accused is still at large would not provide anytesti9catkin for re1easing the petitioner on appeals ' He has been found guilty in the police investigation on the basis of the investigation so far conducted and a report under section 173, Cr.P.C., has already been prepared and is ready for submission to the Court.
5. In the light of the foregoing facts and particularly when the dacoity in the houses upon lonely victims is getting on rampant, the release on bail of the offender involved in such offences should be discouraged particularly as those fall within the prohibitory clause. In this case, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is involved in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause. He has no case for bail at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed.