Muhammad Shahid, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.201 dated 8-6-2001 under sections 302/394/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Sadar Kabirwala, District Khanewal.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F. I. R. Is that on 8-6-2001 at 11-15 a. m. Three persons, the description of whom have been given therein, while one out of them was having pistol, on a motorcycle came to Habib Bank P.1 Rango Branch, Multan. The one with pistol entered the same and fired shot with the pistol at the Gunman. Gunman Muhammad Hussain took the position and fired with his repeater guns and then that man with pistol started firing indiscriminately and ran away. Faqir Bakhsh, second officer pushed the button of alarm. Thereupon many persons gathered there. Due to the tiring of the accused three persons present there were injured. They were Muhammad Saleem alias Budhan Shah, Nadeem Khalid and Jamshaid Ahmad. Muhammad Saleem alias Budhan Shah and Nadeem Khalid were carried to the hospital at Qadirpur Ran.
Muhammad Saleem succumbed to his injury while Nadeem Khalid was referred to Nishtar Hospital, Multan for treatment. The accused entered the Bank and in order to loot the money made tiring as a result thereof those persons were injured but they could not loot money and staff of the bank was also luckily saved. The accused thereafter decamped from the scene on motorcycle towards the eastern side, while they could not succeed.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he was not put to any identification test; that nothing incriminating was recovered from him: that he on the basis of his alleged confessional statement before the police has been involved in this case while the same is not admissible in the evidence; that even otherwise his said confessional statement was recorded about one year and one month after the alleged incident and so the same carried no value; that he was arrested in this case on 24-7-2002 and is behind the bars since then; and that he is previous non-convict. In support of bail plea reliance has been placed upon the case of Farman Ali v. The State (1997 SCM R 971) and Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1997 SCM R 412).
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition. He, however, has conceded that no indentitication parade of the accused in this case was held and that nothing incriminating was recovered from him and he has been involved on the basis of his alleged confessional statement before the police.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. The fact remains that he is not named in the F.I.R. He was also not put to any identification test.
Anything incriminating was also not recovered from him. He admittedly has been involved on the basis of his alleged confessional statement before the police. While the same was recorded about more than one year after the occurrence. All these facts make his case as one of further inquiry and the same, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is stated to be behind the bars for many months and previous non-convict.
7. In these circumstances, case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the case of Farman Ali v. The State (1997 SCM R 971) and Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1997 SCM R 412).
8. The petition is admitted, therefore, and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal/trial Court.