2007 P Cr (PLP)

SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.

As both these bail applications arise out of the same F.I.R., they are being disposed of through this common order.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case per the complainant are that on the day of incident applicant/accused Haji Naseem Gull, Rafique Qandhari, Irian, Nazeer Shah, Saleem Shah, Shah Khalid, Jamil and Muhammad Arif along with four other unknown persons who were all fully armed came to his open plot adjacent to his house and demolished the boundary walls thereof with a tractor belonging to Awwal Shah. They also took away the construction materials lying inside the plot. This incident was narrated to the complainant by his neighbour Kabeer Shah on the telephone as the latter was at his job. When the complainant came back to his home this was confirmed by his family members.

3. On the basis of the foregoing facts learned counsel for the applicants has firstly submitted that the date of incident per the F.I.R. is 3-10-2005 but it was reported on 5-7-2006 which causes a doubt in the matter as the delay has not been explained. So also per learned counsel the matter pertains to a civil dispute between the parties as applicant/ accused No.1 Haji Naseem Gull has filed a suit against the complainant Riaz for possession of the plot in question etc. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant is not an eye-witness to the incident in question in which event the entire episode is based on hearsay evidence. Finally, learned counsel has submitted that all the offences are punishable up to three years' R.I. and bailable. He, therefore, prays that interim bail be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. has opposed confirmation on the ground that at least three eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution case and per the memo. of incident prepared on 6-7-2006 the compound walls of the plot were found in a broken condition.

5. I have heard both learned counsel as well as learned A..A.-G. and my conclusions are as follows.

6. It would be seen that the delay of eight months in lodging the F.I.R. has not at all been explained by the prosecution which causes a doubt in the matter particularly as there appears to be some litigation between the parties regarding the plot in question. In this event, false implication cannot be ruled out. For this reason alone, in my opinion, the interim bail granted to the applicants/accused in both the bail applications should be confirmed on the same terms and conditions. Order accordingly. Both bail applications stand disposed of. H.B.T./N-8/K Bail confirmed.