MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State

ORDER

KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.937/2008 dated 1-10-2008 registered under sections 381/411, P.P.C. at Police Station Ghalib Market Lahore.

2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per narration of F.I.R. are that he had stolen a sum of Rs.5,00,000 from the house of the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record against the petitioner regarding the commission of the offence under which he is liable to be tried. There is no eye-witness account of the occurrence. He further submits that there is no source of theft mentioned anywhere in the F.I.R. It was only the complainant who had recovered the stolen amount from the petitioner. No recovery has been effected by the police, therefore, no recovery memo. could be prepared to connect the petitioner with the commission of said offence. He further argues that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he being the employee of the complainant had demanded enhancement of his salary, which was refused by the complainant, therefore, the instant case stands registered against him. He lastly submits that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last four months. In support of his arguments he has relied upon Muhammad Akram v. The State (2007 PCr.LJ 257).

4. Learned D.P.G. opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role. He, .however, submits that no recovery has been effected from him by the police. He lastly submits that the challan of the case has already been submitted in the trial Court and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the matter, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.G. and have also perused the record. The petitioner is no doubt nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role but this Court has to make tentative assessment as per facts and circumstances of the case as to whether case against the petitioner is made out or not.

In the instant case allegation levelled against the petitioner is regarding theft of Rs.5,00,000 which does not appeal to one's mind for the reason that the petitioner stayed at the same house with stolen amount which is implausible because he could have easily sneaked out from the house after stealing the said amount and there was no reason for him to stay in the said house after stealing huge amount, therefore, this part of the story narrated in the F.I.R. seems concocted and false implication of the petitioner in this case cannot be ruled out. Moreover, there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record against the petitioner except for two servants of the complainant who at his behest had adduced evidence against the petitioner, which can be manoeuvred because they are under the influence of the complainant. Recovery has not been effected through police, therefore, no recovery memo. of the said theft has been prepared. Even no source of theft is mentioned in the F.I.R.

6. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand), with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction, of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

Petition stands disposed of.

H.B.T./M-74/L Bail granted.