2003 P Cr (PLP)

Rasheed Ahmed Qureshi, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicants Moula Bux and Niaz Hussain who are involved in Crime No. 1 of 2002 of Police Station Dadu, under section 17(3), Hudood Ordinance 'read with sections 392 and 452, P.P.C. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per F.I.R. lodged by complainant Muhammad Ismail are that on 18‑11‑2001, while he, alongwith his family members and nephews Gulzar Ahmed and Imamuddin was sleeping in his house, at 1‑00 a.m., he woke up on the noise and found four persons in the courtyard of his house. Three of them were armed with pistols and one had iron rod in his hand. The person having iron rod had given blows with iron rod on his head, he raised cries upon which Gulzar and Imamuddin and other inmates got up. The persons who were armed with pistols on the point of their weapons asked them to keep quite and demanded the cash and gold available in the house. On their refusal the person having iron rod gave iron rod blows to his wife Mst. Ameeran and removed the golden bangles. Thereafter, all the culprits took the double‑barrel gun, golden ornaments and clothes etc. by breaking the trunks and went away giving threats. The culprits were identified by the complainant and Witnesses to be Moula Bux Jamali, Niak and Ahmed son of Rahim Khan Jamali, however, the person having iron rod was to be identified on seeing. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith his wife Ameeran went to police station and obtained letter for treatment went to Civil Hospital, Dadu. After treatment the complainant approached the above‑named accused persons for return of his robbed property, but they kept him on false hopes and ultimately refused. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the report. Police arrested the applicants/accused and after usual investigation challaned them to face trial. It is contended by Mr. Hadad Ali Shah Syed, learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was delayed by about one and half month and vas lodged after consultation, no recovery was effected from the accused/applicants and that the case was registered owing to enmity between the parties as both the parties belong to the same caste. He further, contended that the identification on the light of bulb was doubtful and the case was fabricated. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied upon the following cases: (1) 1998 PCr.LJ 319, (2) 2000 PCr.LJ 159, (3) 2001 MLD 1475, (4) 2001 PCr.LJ 403, (5) 2000 PCr.LJ

408. Conversely, learned A.A.‑G. vehemently opposed the grant of bail pleading that the parties were known to each other and the names of the accused were mentioned in the F.I. R. He contended that the delay in the registration of F.I. R. was adequately explained. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have also benefited‑by the case‑law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants. Admittedly the F.I.R. was registered after the delay of 43 days though the delay in registration of F.I.R. has been explained even otherwise delay per se in registration of F.I.R. cannot be a ground to make the case doubtful if there are other incriminating pieces of evidence against the accused. The present applicants/accused were arrested on 14‑2‑2002 and the case has been challaned. Nothing has been recovered from the applicants/accused and there is no incriminating piece of evidence to connect the applicants/accused with the commission of crime except that they have been nominated in the F.I.R. The nomination in the F.I.R. which is inordinately delayed has thus rendered the case against the present applicants/accused of further inquiry. In view of the case‑law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused the applicants/accused are entitled to the grant of bail. Resultantly the bail is granted to the applicants in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M‑409/K Bail granted.