MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State

ORDER

SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.--- The petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, seeks post-arrest bail in case bearing F.I.R. No.222 of 2004, dated 23-11-2004, under sections 458/411, P.P.C., at Police Station Sanawan, District Muzaffargarh.

2. Briefly the facts of this case are that on the eventful night i.e. 22-11-2004 at midnight 8 unknown persons duly armed with deadly weapons entered into the house of the complainant and committed theft of golden ornaments and other household articles.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and it is only in the supplementary statement that his name has appeared; that the allegation against the petitioner is based on suspicion as he is alleged to have been seen on a day earlier near the place of the occurrence; that this itself requires further inquiry to the guilt of the petitioner thus entitling him to grant of bail; that identification parade was not held in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail petition and submits that wrist watch has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner.

5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and it is only through the supplementary statement recorded on 31-11-2004 that he has been involved. The above entitles the petitioner to grant of bail. Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2003 YLR 1858(1)) is referred. No identification parade was conducted. While relying upon Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1997 SCMR 971) and Muhammad Suleman v. Riasat Ali and another (2002 SCMR 1304), case of further inquiry is made out by the present petitioner thus entitling him to grant of bail. The petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of suspicion and on this account, he cannot be kept in jail. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months and it will take long time before his trial is finally decided, therefore, keeping him behind the bars for such a long time would not serve any useful purpose. There is no concept of punishment before conviction. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.

6. In light of above what has been discussed, while accepting this petition, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

H.B.T./M-1379/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.