' This is an application for bail moved on behalf of Muhammad Ikram alias Pappu who had been arrested by the police in connection with a case registered against him under section 399/402, P.P.C. At Police Station Badami Bagh, Lahore as Crime No,210 of 1998 dated 4-6-1998.
2. The application for bail moved earlier before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore was dismissed by order dated 27-6-1998.
3. According to prosecution, on 4-6-1998 at 8.00 p.m., a police party headed by Mian Muhammad Riaz Inspector S.H.O. Police Station Badami Bagh received spy information that six persons were present near Dera Mian Beko, Bund Road, Lahore, armed with fire-arms with the intention to commit dacoity upon Sarfraz patrol pump situated at Bund Road Lahore. On receiving this information, the S.H.O. Alongwith police party went there. Three persons, out of those persons, ran away from the spot on seeing the police party. The petitioners and two persons were arrested on the spot. From the possession of the petitioner, one 32 bore Pistol alongwith the eight bullets were recovered, for which the petitioner had allegedly no licence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case there is nothing to show that the petitioner had made preparations to commit the offence under section 399, P.P.C. In support of his contention, he had relied upon Hatim and others v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 900 (Karachi), Muhammad Akram v. The State (1994 P.Cr.L.J. 840 (Lahore), Abdul Wahid v. The State (1993 P.Cr.L.J. 2254 (Karachi) and Sajjad Hussain v. The State (1993 P.Cr.L.J. 2415 (Karachi).
5. The learned State counsel admitted that there is nothing on the record to support prosecution version except the statement of the complainant. He has admitted that the material available with the prosecution does not show that the petitioner had allegedly made any preparation for committing offence as contemplated under section 399, P.P.C. He, however, asserted that mere presence of the petitioner alongwith his co-accused at that odd hours of the night clearly shows that they had collected there for the purpose of committing dacoity.
6. From the perusal of the contents of F.I.R. And after considering all the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and also after hearing the arguments of the learned State counsel, it appears that material available with the prosecution does not show that the petitioner had allegedly made any preparation for committing offence as contemplated under section 399, P.P.C. The mere presence of the petitioner alongwith his co-accused at a specific place does not constitute an offence either under section 399, P.P.C. Or under section 402, P. P.0 .
7. For the foregoing reasons, case of the petitioner squarely falls, and is covered, under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.