2011 PLP 2426 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.

Granted.

2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

3. Through this bail application the present applicant has challenged the or r dated 26-7-2010 passed in Criminal ail Application No.522 of 2010 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, whereby the bail application of the present applicant has been rejected. The prosecution story as set out in the F.I.R. is as under:-- "Complaint is that I am serving in Army Department and came at my village on leave. Whereas accused Sadaruddin Bullo was always with wrong intention and always created troubles to my wife Riffat and saying so that he would kidnap her and so many times restrain him but he did not do so. On 5-4-2010 I and my brother Barkat Ali and father Shah Nawaz along with other inmates were slept in the house after taking meals and the electric light was on at about 4-00 a.m. at Dawn time I woke up on some noise and on barking of dogs. I and P.Ws. seen accused while they were standing in the house, each accused Sadaruddin with Kalashnikov, (2) Bangui with Lathi, (3) Malik Dino with Gun, all Residents of Village Ahmed Dayo, (4) Shamsuddin alias Shamoo, (5) Hakim Ali, both sons of Datir Dino Bullo, having hatchets, (6) Munir Ahmed with Gun, (7) Rawat with Gun, all Residents of Village Aagro and along with two unidentified persons having Kalashnikovs, if seen again will be identified. Accused Bangul instigated other accused to kidnap my wife Mst. Riffat and started dragging her from her arms and I raised cries whereupon accused issued threats for dire consequences. Accused Malik Dino alias Papoo, Hakim Ali, Munir Ahmed and Rawat Bullo went into my room and broken handles of Iron Box and robbed away gold and further asked if they chase then they would be murdered and then accused kidnapped Mst. Riffat and took away robbed articles which is mentioned in the detail of property in the F.I.R., hence this F.I.R. seeks for redressal." In support of the present bail application, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that there is delay of 16 days in lodging of the F.I.R., which has not been explained by the prosecution. He further says that the allegation against the present applicant is general in nature with regard to the commission of robbery. It is not specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. as to whether the present applicant had broken the Iron Box or he had taken some article therefrom. It is also not clear from the reading of the F.I.R. that which articles were taken by the present applicant. In the F.I.R. two alienations have been made, one with regard to the abduction of wife of complainant and other with regard to the robbery, however, the F.I.R. only connects him with regard to robbery. Since the allegations against the present applicant are general in nature and there is inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R., which has not been explained as such the case requires further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. On the other hand learned A.P.-G. for the State has opposed the grant of bail, as according to 'him the applicant is involved in the offence of abduction so also robbery and he is not entitled to bail and all the witnesses in the case are natural witnesses and inmates and there is no enmity of the present applicant with the complainant's family, hence there is no question arises to involve the present applicant unnecessarily. He says that bail may not be granted to the present applicant. Mr. Qurban Ali Malano, learned counsel undertakes to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, he may do so in the offence. He says that he is also appearing in Criminal Bail Application No.S-432 of 2010 which arises from the same F.I.R. Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the grant of bail and adopted the arguments of the learned A.P.-G. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and nave gone through the record. From the perusal of the record, it appears that it is not specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. as to whether the present applicant had broken the Iron Box or he had taken some article there from. It is also not clear from the reading of the F.I.R. that which articles were taken by the present applicant. In the F.I.R. two allegations have been made, one with regard to the abduction of wife of complainant and other with regard to the robbery, however, the F.I.R. only connects him with regard to robbery. Since the allegations against the present applicant are general in nature and there is inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R., which has not been explained as such the case requires further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly the present applicant is granted bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Two Lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./H-18/K Bail granted.