2011 PLP 1929 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.

Applicant is booked in Crime No.37 of 2010, under section 394, P.P.C., lodged at Police Station Bandhi by complainant Muhammad Aleem Dahri.

2. The case set out by the prosecution in the F.I.R. is that complainant along with his friend Gul Hassan while going by katcha path of land of Haji Bashir Kamboh through Phatak when at 7-00 p.m. near old Landhi, meanwhile three persons with muffled faces came from Banana crop, out of them two were armed with hatchets and one was armed with pistol and made hakals to the applicant and his friend and terrorized them with show force. Thereafter accused persons under the show force robbed the complainant and his friend cash Rs.10,000 two Mobile telephones valuing Rs.14500 and four pairs of clothes of different colours valued Rs.1500. It is further case of the prosecution that during the commission of the offence the complainant and his friend resisted and during the course of resistance the faces of the accused persons were unmuffled. It is stated in the F.I.R. that one person armed with pistol was identified as Ahsan Jamali and Ali Raza having hatchet and the other person who was also having hatchet was unknown. It is further case of the prosecution that accused Ahsan Jamali caused pistol butt blow to Gul Hassan Jamali which hit him over his left eye, Ali Raza caused also hatchet blow to the complainant on his head and unknown person caused blunt side hatchet blow on the complainant's body. On raising cries the other villagers came and thereafter the accused persons ranaway. Thereafter F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of the bail application has submitted that as per F.I.R. the occurrence took place on 22-8-2010 at 7-00 p.m. whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 25-8-2010 at 1600 hours. Learned counsel says that there is three days delay in lodging the F.I.R. which has not been explained by the prosecution. Learned counsel further submitted that referral letter was obtained by the complainant and his friend from the relevant Police Station on 22-8-2010 but after delay of two days they appeared before the Medical Officer for medical examination and treatment. The Medical Certificate shows that on 24-8-2010, complainant and his friend was examined by the Medical Officer who opined that injuries sustained by the complainant and his friend are minor in nature. Learned counsel says that such injuries fall under section 337-A(i), P.P.C., which is non-cognizable and is also bailable. Learned counsel further says that arrest of the present applicant was made on 28-8-2010 and at the time of the arrest from his house nothing was recovered from the present applicant, however, subsequently police has shown the recovery from the applicant on 2-9-2010, one L.G Mobile telephone and two pairs of clothes, one being blue in colour and the other was brown in colour. Learned counsel says that neither the delay in appearing before the Medical Officer has been explained nor the delay in effecting the recovery has been explained by the prosecution. Learned counsel says that present applicant is not connected with the commission of the offence and the police has malafidely implicated the present applicant and has planted the recovered articles upon him. He has further submitted that alleged recovery was never confronted to the complainant or his friend. Learned further says that bare perusal of the mashirnama and the F.I.R. would show that in the F.I.R. description of the mobile telephone have been shown as "mobile phone China company" and "Mobile Nektail", whereas alleged recovery effected from the present applicant is a mobile telephone of L.G Company which has no bearing with the alleged robbed articles. Learned counsel says that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

4. One the other hand learned D.P.-G. Sindh though has opposed the bail plea of the applicant but could not justify the delay in lodging the F.I.R. The learned D.P.-G Sindh has also failed to point out as to why two days had taken in reaching the complainant and his friend to the Medical Officer, however, learned D.P.-G Sindh concedes to the fact that the injury sustained by the complainant and his friend were simple in nature and falls under section 337-A(i), P.P.C., which is non-cognizable and bailable as well. Learned D.P.-G. Sindh also agreed that L.G. mobile telephone allegedly recovered from the present applicant has no bearing with the robbed articles. He concedes to the fact that no description of the clothes has been mentioned in the F.I.R.. hence the clothes recovered from the present applicant are of no consequences as the same has not been confronted to the complainant and his friend.

5. It is a bail stage and deeper appreciation can not be gone into but a tentative assessment is to be made. Record shows that the present applicant has made out a case for further inquiry in terms of provisions of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. due to the discrepancies noted hereinabove.

6. In the circumstances, I admit the present applicant to bail, on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and on execution of P.R Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.

7. Needless to mention that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court.

8. Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of along with listed application. N.H.Q./A-17/K Bail allowed.