' Shaukat Ali alias Madh has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,459 of 2002 registered at Police Station Sadar, Rahimyar Khan on 10-8-2002 for ,offence under section 395, P.P.C., which was subsequently deleted and substituted by sections 392/411/109, P. P. C.
2. The precise allegation as levelled in the F.I.R. Was that the petitioner alongwith five others, while armed with fire-arms, stopped the tractor-trolly loaded with wheat, which was being driven by Muhammad laved, while complainant was sitting him, whereafter Rasheed Ahmad and Muhammad Afzal, co-accused, took away the tractor-trolly alongwith them, whereas the other accused left on a motorcycle. The matter was reported to the police telephonically and thereafter the tractor and trolly was recovered from the custody of Rasheed and Afzal, coascused.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 30-8-2002 and is in jail after completion of investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner, that no recovery was effected from him and that petitioner was roped in this case due to his previous enmity with the complainant party. He has lastly submitted that petitioner was not found present at the scene of occurrence in various investigations as alleged by the prosecution in F.I.R.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant and learned State counsel have vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and have argued that the petitioner was named in promptly lodged F.I.R., that the petitioner was present alongwith other co-accused and was also armed at that time, that the witnesses have supported the story as given in F.I.R. During investigation, that opinion of police was not binding on the Court, that the petitioner had earlier been involved in criminal case and that offences attract the prohibitog clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of case.
7. In three consistent investigations, the police came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. And had only abetted the offence, therefore, section 109, P.P.C. Was added. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The record is barren as far as evidence against the petitioner vis-a-vis abetment is concerned. It is true that the opinion of the police is not binding upon the Court but the same was always considered relevant for the purposes of grant of refusal of bail. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a previous convict. Accused Ghulam Abbas, who was shown to be present at the scene of occurrence, was found to be innocent during investigation. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the allegations against the petitioner need further probe and enquiry within the ambit of subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.