Fida Hussain petitioner through the instant petition seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.150 dated 17-7-2000, tinder sections 392/411, P.P.C., Police Station Galaywal, Tehsil and District Lodhran.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 17-7-2002 at about 8-00 p.m. He and his, co- accused while they were having lethal weapons had committed dacoity, during the course of which they, had snatched motorcycle, wrist-watch and Rs.40 from the complainant.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he is not named in the F.I.R.; that he was not identified by the complainant in the identification test; that there is only evidence against him of recovery of allegedly snatched motorcycle from him; that his co-accused Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Riaz have been allowed bail by the learned lower Court; that the grounds on which his co-accused Muhammad Riaz was allowed bail is also available to him for extending him relief sought for" that due to his involvement in certain other cases he cannot be denied tile relief of bail as already held by this Court in his case as well as in the case of Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1997 SCM R 412; that he is behind the bars since 25-7-2002 and so far there is no progress towards his trial; and that he is not at all previous non-convict and so cannot be said to be dangerous, desperate and hardened criminal.
4. Conversely the learned State Counsel has opposed the application on the found that the snatched motorcycle of the complainant was recovered 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. He is not named in the F.I.R. The learned State Counsel has conceded that he was not picked up by the complainant in the identification test. The only evidence on record against him is of recovery of the allegedly snatched motorcycle from him.
7. In view of the fact available that he is not named with F.I.R. And was not picked up by the complainant in the identification test, it is yet to see that if he can be held liable for the offence under section 392, P.P.C. Or not. So his case, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Requiring further inquiry into his guilt. While the offence under section 411, P.P.C. Is not covered under the prohibitory clause of the said section i.e. 497, Cr.P.C.
8. Besides than this, his co-accused Muhammad Riaz has been allowed bail in the instant case on 15-9-2000 by Ch. Nabi Ahmad, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran. His case is identical to him except that his involvement in certain other cases. In the case of Muhammad Rafique v. The State SCMR 412, the august Supreme Court has held that involvement of an accused in number of cases of robbery was not sufficient to deprive him of his liberty. In that case record did not indicate that the accused therein was put to any identification test. So, if seen from that angle, his case is identical to his said co-accused Muhammad Riaz as said above. Thus rule of consistency will also come into play in his case. He is stated to be behind the bars since 25-7-2002 and is previous non- convict.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me the certified copy of last interim order passed by the learned Court in his case. The same is dated 4-9-2002. It shows that the P.Ws. Are being summoned in his case. So, at the moment seems that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of his trial.
10. In these circumstances, I find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made.
11. The petition is, therefore, accepted and he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.