2010 PLP 901 (YLR)

MAQBOOL AHMED AWAN, J.--The applicant has applied for bail in Crime No.114 of 2009 of Police Station Darakhshan registered for the offence under section 392/34, P.P.C. Prior to this he has applied for bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South on 24-4-2009. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that on 23-2-2009 at 1800 hours complainant Tanveer Rana lodged the F.I.R. in which he has stated that on 19-2-2009 at about 0145 hours inside Flat No.201, 2nd Floor, Building No.19/C, Khayaban-e-Shamshir, Phase-V, Defence Housing Authority Karachi, at night time he was sleeping along with children in his house, subsequently the door was knocked, he opened the door and found a person in police dress, he asked for search of the flat, they entered into the flat and shown pistol and two persons wearing pant shirt duly armed with pistol also entered into the flat. All the three had pistols in their hands and forcefully entered into his house and kept on showing weapons and talking forcefully took out Rs.14,000 from the wardrobe and two sets of mobile phones of L.G. and Nokia together with the gold two separate sets, 14 bangles, and two heavy bangles total gold ornaments approximately 12 to 13 lacs were snatched on gun-point, they said while leaving that they are going to a flat on the above storey and will return him, his cash amount. They were scared of the weapons and therefore could not do anything, thereafter the complainant went to P.S. and lodged this F.I.R. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argued that the police of P.S. Darakhshan(sic). He further argued that no offence has been committed by the applicant/accused, therefore he may be granted bail. Learned State counsel has opposed the application on the ground that the recovery has been effected from the applicant, therefore he is not entitled for bail. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned State counsel and perused the material available on record. It appears that the name, features description of the application are not mentioned in the F.I.R. There is delay of four days in lodging of F.I.R., which has not been explained plausibly by the complainant. No identification parade of the applicant/accused was held before the Magistrate. However, it was held before the police. No F.I.R. under section 411, P.P.C. in respect of the alleged recovery has been lodged against the accused by the prosecution. The applicant/accused was said to have been arrested in Crime No.124/2009 and he has been granted bail in that crime by the learned IInd Assistant Sessions Judge, so also in another case/Crime No.125/2009 he was granted bail by the learned 1st Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate. In view of the above I am of the considered view that the applicant/accused has made out a case for further enquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. which requires further enquiry, therefore, I allow this bail application and grant bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-135/K Bail granted.