The petitioner Falak Sher seeks post --arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 84 dated 1-3-2001, under sections 458/392/411, P.P.C., Police Station City, Mianchannu, District Khanewal.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 28-2-2001 at about 9-30 p.m. Three armed persons with muffled faces, the description of whom have been given therein, had entered the house of the complainant Muhammad Habib. One out of them armed with Churri cut the telephone cable. The other bolted the door from inside and asked them to hand over the key of the almirah, while the key was in the safe and man having pistol took out Rs.57,500, three gents wrist- watches worth Rs.6,000 from there. They also got the gold bangles and ear--rings from his were.
Thereafter, two of them entered the room of his daughter-in-law. They took from her golden ornaments worth Rs.72,000. They also took away Rs.3,000, VCR and a video camera therefrom and bolted the door from outside and went with these articles.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in on the basis of supplementary statement dated 10-7-2002 of the complainant and the same was about five months after the incident; that such statement has no evidentiary value that he was not put to any identification test; that from the facts and circumstances of the case, maximum offence under section 411, P.P.C. Can be attracted against him; that the recovery has been planted upon him while it was not at all effected from him; that he is involved in few cases of similar nature, but such fact cannot disentitle him to the relief prayed for; that he is behind the bars since 31-7-2001 and that he is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that his name has figured in the supplementary statement dated 10-7-2001 of the complainant and thereafter recovery of Rs.15,000, carpet and VCR was effected from him; and that he is involved in other cases of similar nature.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced from both the sides with the help of the available record.
6. The fact remains that he is not named in the F.I.R. He admittedly was not put to any identification test. His name has figured for the first time in the statement of the complainant shown to have been recorded on 10-7-2001. The evidentiary value of such belated statement is a question, which can appropriately be attended to at the trial by the competent Court.
7. In view of the fact that his name has not figured in the F.I.R. And he having not been put to any identification test, the question that if he would be held liable for the alleged offence or not is open to further inquiry. So, his case would be covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. Allegedly the recovery of few looted articles have been effected from him. The same maximum would attract offence under section 411, P.P.C., which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is stated to be behind the bars since 31-10-2001 and is previous non-- convict.
9. As regards the contention that he stands involved in certain other cases of the similar nature, the same would hardly be the ground for refusal of bail particularly when his case is found fit for the same.
10. In these circumstances, I accept this petition and admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.