' Petitioner Azmat Farooq through the instant petition has sought for after arrest bail in case F. I. R.
No. 775, dated 5-9-2002 originally registered under section 458, P.P.C. With Police Station, Sadar, Faisalabad.
2. Later on the police have added sections 380/411, P.P.C. In the same.
3. Briefly the, prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 4-9-2002 at about 2-00 a.m. Three dacoits armed with lethal weapons entered the house of the complainant Abid Hussain by scaling over the wall. Out of them two entered in his bedroom and pointed out the pistol at his wife Mst. Farah Begum and asked her to hand over the keys of the safe to them. She gave them keys. They took cash amount of Rs.1,30,000 from the safe and also VCR and a camera from the almirah. They threatened them to kill them and their children in case they raised noise. They thereafter cut the telephone wires and fled away.
4. 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 has not been put to any identification test; that merely an amount of Rs.4,000 is shown to have been recovered from him and in fact the same has been planted upon him; that the currency notes allegedly recovered from him did not carry any special 'mark and these are of common pattern and so it cannot be said with certainty that these in fact belonged to the complainant; that his name has figures in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 5-1-2003; that this was with the delay of about four months of the alleged incident and so this carried no value in the eye of law; that he is behind the bars for last about ten months and previous non-convict; and that so far there is no progress towards his trial. In support of bail plea reliance has been placed upon the case Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1997 SCM R 412.
5. On the other hand the learned State counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that an amount of Rs.4,000 has been recovered from him; that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And that he is involved in certain other cases of similar nature.
6. The fact remains that he is not named in the F.I.R. He was also not put to any identification test.
The supplementary statement of the complainant has been recorded on 5-1-2003. His name has figured in the same. Firstly it was about four months after the alleged incident. Secondly, it was in the police station where he was in the custody of the police. The question of it's evidentiary value is to be determined at the time of the trial. His case, therefore, for the above indicated reasons is certainly one of further inquiry into his guilt. The same, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. Allegedly he has led to the recovery of an amount of Rs.4,000 from his house. This allegation, if may be believed as it is, the same would maximum attract an offence under section 411, P.P.C., which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about ten months and previous non-convict, which fact has not been controverted by the other side.
9. I, therefore, find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Rafique v.
The State 1997 SCM R 412.
10. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.