MUHAMMAD USMAN Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Usman petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 335/15, dated 16.08.2015 registered at Police Station Sajid Shaheed, Sargodha in respect of offences under sections 392/411, P.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of eighteen days in registration of the FIR which has not been explained by the complainant, so prima facie it seems that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant after due deliberations and consultations. The petitioner has been involved in this case through a supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant on 28.10.2015, i.e. after three months of the occurrence wherein no source of information has been mentioned by the complainant. Law is quite settled on the point that the supplementary statement without source has got no value in the eyes of law. Reliance can be placed on the cases of Naeem Akhtar v. The State (1996 SCMR 511) and Abid Ali alias Ali v. The State (2011 SCMR 161). No test-identification parade has been held in this case so as to positively involve the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence. I may observe here that in cases where the names of culprits are not mentioned, holding of test-identification parade becomes mandatory. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as 1997 SCMR 971, 2010 YLR 126, 2005 YLR 565, 2004 PCr.LJ 1659 and 2000 YLR 80. Although recovery of Rs. 3000/- has been shown to have been effected from the petitioner yet the fact remains that authenticity of such recovery will be considered by the learned trial court after recording evidence in this case. Heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused who otherwise becomes entitled for the concession of bail. The petitioner is previous non-convict, he is behind the bars since his arrest, the investigation of this case qua the petitioner is complete, he is no more required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It is settled law that a person cannot be detained in jail for an indefinite period especially when conclusion of his trial is not in sight. Mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases without conviction is no ground to refused bail to him.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing hail bond in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
WA/M-179/L Bail granted.