' Maqsood Iftikhar, the petitioner through the instant petition has prayed for after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.527 dated 18-11-2002 under section 392, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, South Cantt.
Lahore.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 18-11-2002 at about 11-30 a.m., the wife and Nauman Wazir, the younger son of the complainant were present in his house. At that time two unknown persons with mousers entered there and they on gun-point snatched the gold ornaments worth Rs.3,00,000, cash amount Rs. 4,000 and prize bonds worth Rs. 30,000 from them and fled away.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falseiy been roped in; that he is not named in the F.I.R.; that he was not put to identification test and so the question of his involvement in the matter is not above doubt; that recovery of some of the looted articles has been shown from him while the same is planted one and even if, the same may be taken true as it is, it would at best attract an offence under section 411, P.P.C. Which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that he is behind the bars for the last about eight months; and that he is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition. He however, has conceded that he was not put to any identification test.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. He (petitioner) is not named in the F.I.R. He was also not put to any identification test. His name has figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 27-11-2002. The evidentiary value of such statement is to be adjudged at trial. Hence his case is open to further inquiry into his guilt. The same, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. As regards the question of recovery of some looted articles from him, the same even if may be taken true, as it is, it would 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 eight months and previous non-convict.
9. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail 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.