MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The instant case was registered on the statement of Sohail Saeed Manager United Bank, under section 392, P.P.C. The allegation leveled in the F.I.R. is that some entered into the Bank and looted Rs.50,49,392.30.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that for the first time name of the petitioner, figured on 10‑10‑2000 when the supplementary statement was recorded, that during the course of investigation police planted Rs.50,000 on him and his identification parade was not held according to the High Court Order and Rules, that main accused i.e. Inam and Afzaal were arrested in this case and Rs.7,00,000 and Rs.5,00,000 were recovered from him respectively and they have been granted bail, that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

3. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that Rs.50,000 was recovered from the present petitioner, that he was, identified in the Jail by the eye‑witnesses, that case of the petitioner is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr. P.C.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. After two years supplementary statement was recorded i.e. on 10‑10‑2000 and thereafter the petitioner was arrested in this case though identification parade had held in Jail but the fact remains that two main accused namely Inam and Afzaal from whom Rs.6,70,000 and Rs.5,00,000 were recovered respectively, have been allowed bail. On the last date of hearing I adjourned this petition with a direction to the A.S.‑I., who was present in Court to produce F.I.Rs. registered against the present petitioner because it was stated before me that four other cases of similar nature have been registered against him. Today Irfan S.I. is present in Court and has submitted said F.I.Rs. I have gone through the same, one relates to March, 2000 second relates to September, 1998 and the third one was registered in September, 1999. and in none of these; petitioner is named.

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record available on the file, I am of the view that case of the petitioner is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. which requires further inquiry to the guilt of the petitioner: In this view of the matter this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

Bail allowed

N.H.Q./M‑1255/L