2012 PLP 1246 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.

The applicants seek bail after arrest in Crime No. 106 of 2010 registered with Police Station Halani, under sections 17/3. EHO, 342, 171 P.P.C. The bail application moved before the trial court on behalf of the applicants was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro vide order dated 22-9-2010. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as set out in the F.I.R., are that on 8-7-2010 at 5-00 p.m. complainant Muhammad Imtiaz lodged the F.I.R., alleging inter alia therein that on 7-7-2010 after loading 557 cartons of Tapal tea in his truck, he left for Benazirabad city to distribute the same in different cities and after supplying 114 cartons at Ranipur City, they proceeded ahead and when at about 4-00 p.m. reached near NHW near Nawaz CNG pump, they were intercepted by a 02 car. Six nominated accused persons, wearing excise police dress, except one, got alighted the complainant party down from the truck and having them seated in their car, tied their eyes and robbed cash and other belongings from them. The accused persons drove away truck, loaded with tea and also they left the complainant party at Sabu Rahu, where complainant party informed the National High and local police and on Nakabandi police of Police Station Saeedabad apprehended present applicants along with truck. Consequently, above noted F.I.R. was lodged. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is unexplained delay in lodging of F.I.R. on the part of prosecution and benefit whereof be extended to the applicants even at bail stage. He further says that the allegations are general in nature and no specific allegation has been against the applicants individually. He places on record along with statement agreement to sale of vehicle bearing No.AE-0702 by one Mehar Ali who is cousin of applicant Ayaz to the complainant and there was dispute between seller and purchaser with regard to balance sale consideration. He says that due to this dispute present applicants along with other accused have been implicated falsely. He further says that seller of vehicle, had already moved to DIG by making an application complaining the above dispute with regard to sale and purchase of truck. He contends that present F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants, as counter-blast to defeat the claim of the seller by implicating present applicants in this case. Learned counsel further says that alleged recovery of truck was allegedly effected by the police on 8-7-2010 at 12-30 a.m. but no private person has been cited as Mashir though alleged recovery was effected on the main road. He further says that even it is not mentioned in the memo that some private persons were asked to act as Mashir, but they refused. He further says that no weapon whatsoever, as alleged in the F.I.R., was recovered from the applicants. He says that police has registered case at the behest of the complainant against the applicants and pray that applicants he admitted to bail. On the other hand learned A.P.-G. has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicants and has supported the order passed by the trial Court rejecting bail application of the applicants. He has submitted that case of the prosecution as set-out in the F.I.R. is fully supported by P.Ws. in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. He further says that there is no ill-will of the police against the applicants and since recovery was affected in the night no private person was available who could be cited as witness to the recovery. He says that recovery of robbed articles has been made from the applicants so also truck in dispute hence, their bail was rightly rejected by the trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is well settled law that at bail stage deeper appreciation cannot gone into, but only tentative assessment is to be made just to find out as to whether applicant is connected with the commission of offence or not. Applying the above rule to the present case, it will be noticed that incident allegedly took place on 7-7-2010 at 4-00 p.m. and the F.I.R. was lodged on 8-7/2010 at 5-00 p.m. Delay in lodging of F.I.R. has not been explained by the prosecution. On the other hand, as per prosecution case recovery was effected by the police on 8-7-2010 at 12-30 a.m. but such recovery is doubtful as all the Mashirs are police personnel and no private person has been even asked to act as Mashir. It can be further noted from the record that neither any weapon has been recovered from the applicants nor any other article except truck and tea cartons. Since there appears to be some dispute between the parties over sale and purchase of truck, it will be just and fair to admit the applicants to bail. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is fit case in which further enquiry is called for in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I admit the present applicants to bail on furnishing solvent surely in the sum of Rs.100,000 (One lac rupees) each and execution of PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. In view of above, bail application is disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./A-112/K Bail granted.