2005 PLP 3235 (YLR)

RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.

This is a case of theft committed in the house of complainant Muhammad Hashim on 3-11-2004 at 4 a.m. in the night. It is alleged that the complainant along with his guests and other persons were sleeping in the house. When at about 4 a.m. they woke up on some noise and saw 5 persons armed with pistols, daggers, Lathies and guns. Out of them the complainant identified the applicant Noordin who was armed with pistol and Nizamuddin armed with Lathi. The thieves confined all the inmates of the house in a room then they committed theft from the house by opening the door of another room and took away the household articles. The complainant then went to inform the incident to his Nekmard and then he went to police station and lodged the report. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that there is a delay of 33 hour , in lodging the F.I.R.; that applicant Nooruddin has not caused any injury to anybody; that nothing has been secured from the possession of the applicant. Learned State counsel has conceded the above position, therefore, he has no objection to the grant of bail. I have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the material available on the record and found that the incident took place in the night time when the 5 accused persons armed with deadly weapons entered into the house. Apparently, the offence would fall with in the definition of dacoity. During the commission of said offence one of the accused had caused injury to the complainant. All the inmates of the house were confined in a room and thereafter the culprits took away the cash, golden ornaments and other household articles. This is not the case of the injury where the question of causing injuries should be considered independently but in this type of cases when 5 or more persons armed with deadly weapons committing lurking house trespass by entering the house and committed the offence, each accused would be responsible for the said offence. It is not out of place to mention that such type of offences are increasing day by day, therefore stringent steps are required to be taken to discourage this type of offences. However, if the accused are released on bail then there will be danger to the society. As regards the delay in lodging the F.I.R. the complainant has tried to explain such delay. However, the same requires deeper appreciation of evidence, which can be properly examined at the time of trial when the required evidence is produced by the prosecution, therefore no definite findings can be given at this state. The P.Ws. have fully supported the prosecution case. As such there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants are involved in the crime, hence they are not entitled to the concession of bail. Application is dismissed along with listed applications. H.B.T./N-72/K Bail refused.