1995 PLP 1158 (MLD)

1994 P Cr. L J 626 ref. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicants. Abdul Latif Ansari, A. A. G. for the State.

1. Granted,

2. The brief facts leading to this application are that one Haji Rehmatullah lodged his report at P.S. Surjani Town, being F.I.R. No. 18/95 on 7‑2‑1995 under section 17(3) Offences against Property Hudood Ordinance, 1979, stating therein that on 25‑1‑1995 at 9‑00 p.m. he was driving his truck and when he reached near Ideal Poultry Farm on the road certain persons stopped the truck. At that time the conductor of the truck, namely, Rasool Khan was also with him. As soon as he stopped the truck six persons came in front of him and out of them one took out the revolver and the other persons caught hold the conductor. It is further stated that the complainant came down from the truck and caught hold the person who was having revolver and in the meanwhile another person who was having a pistol also came near, but the complainant snatched his pistol also. He has further stated that during this struggle other four culprits also came near and took out Rs. 1,200 from his pocket and they got released the culprits from his clutches and went towards forest. He narrated this incident to his brother Amanullah and Aslam, the Truck Adda Owner and also to other drivers and he started searching the 'culprits. According to him, he has come to know that the police has arrested same culprits as such he came to the police station on 7‑2‑1995 and identified the present applicant/accused alongwith co‑accused Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Imran to be the same among others. The police after usual investigation challaned the accused op 22‑2‑1995. The point agitated by the learned counsel are that there is a delay of two weeks in lodging the F.I.R.; that there is no identification parade held nor there is any description of the accused given in the F.I.R. though the F.I.R. is lodged after the arrest of the accused persons as they were already with the police where the complainant first saw them and then lodged the F.I.R.; that the accused persons admittedly were not known to the complainant prior to the incident. As such he has placed reliance on 1994 P Cr. L J 626, wherein it was held that accused, who was stated to be stranger to the complainant, was not subjected to the identification parade, no recovery has been affected from the accused, case against accused, therefore, needs further enquiry and the bail was granted. Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, A. A. G., has conceded to the grant of bail. According to him, the story in the F.I.R. is concocted one and there are latches in the F.I.R. He has further argued that the complainant being a truck owner and a driver is in touch with the police as such police has used him. After hearing the arguments of both the counsel I am of the view that it is a case of further enquiry as there is admittedly delay in lodging the F.I.R. of about two weeks and the Investigating Officer has failed to arrange identification of the accused from the complainant and his Conductor Rasool Khan. I, therefore, grant bail to the applicants/accused in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 each with P. R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./S‑1119/K Bail granted.