2012 PLP 1271 (YLR)

ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.

The accused has sought bail in Crime No.20 of 2008 dated 1-5-2008 under sections 392, 412, P.P.C. read with section 17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 recorded at Police Station, Nasarpur lodged by complainant Loung son of Jaro Khan, The facts leading to the present application are that on 1-5-2008 at about 8-00 p.m. the complainant along with Manager Fazal-ul-Haque Memon and PW Dilsher alias Babu were returning from his farm on a tractor and when they reached near Ghulam Muhammad Daudpoto village, they saw on the head-light of the tractor that four persons namely Sadique armed with DBBL gun, Samano alias Sheedi Chutto duly armed with pistol, Soomar Chutto duly armed with hatchet and Ameer Palejo duly armed with lathi were present who stopped them forcibly and on the point of weapons, they snatched his mobile Phone, watch and cash of Rs.150 from him and from P.W. Fazal-ul-Haq one watch and from P.W. Dilsher alias Babu cash of Rs.300 also snatched, accused Ameer Palejo boarded on the tractor and decamped towards Nasarpur from Khahi Road. The remaining three accused stood guard over them. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that after some time complainant party along with police came there and by tracking foot prints, they reached on Katcha path from Nasarpur Road, they saw the tractor parked there and the accused Ameer Palejo was sitting on it and they along with police after encircling them arrested him and secured-the tractor from him. After completion of all the formali-ties at the spot they were brought at the police station where the F.I.R. was lodged. After registration of the F.I.R., Investigation was conducted and case was challaned against the accused in the Court of law, which was entrusted before the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad where the bail application was filed, but did not find fair and was dismissed, hence this application. I have heard Mr. M. Sulleman Dahri, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mukhtiar Ahmed Khanzada, learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that from the contents of F.I.R., it is spelt out that the alleged incident was committed by some unknown persons and subsequently, all the names of accused have been mentioned in the F.I.R. proving as if the complainant was in knowledge of the names of all the accused, which is impossible in the peculiar circumstances of the case. He further contended that the recovery of the tractor has been foisted and on that this case has been made out for further inquiry. Mr. Mukhtiar Ahmed Khanzada, learned State counsel very frankly conceded that all the investigation have been conducted prior to the registration of the F.I.R. as such, the said investigation is illegal, therefore, will not support the refusal of bail to the applicant. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the material available before me. After going through the allegations contained in the F.I.R., it transpired that the incident was admittedly committed by some unknown persons and whenever the incident is committed by some unknown persons, the names of the accused could not be mentioned in the F.I.R. and mentioning of the names of the accused in the F.I.R., leaving to the presumption that the accused were previously known to the complainant prior to the registration of the F.I.R. In such state of affairs, mentioning the names of accused in the F.I.R. is of much importance, which shows that the complainant has some motive against the applicant to involve him in the present crime by specific mentioning the names in the F.I.R. Similarly, the recovery of tractor is alleged after some distance and the present applicant was allegedly sitting on the said tractor at the time when complainant party along with police party reached at the place while searching the tractor found that it was coming from Nasarpur towards Katcha Path and the complainant identified his tractor as well as the applicant, therefore, after encircling the tractor the applicant was arrested. It is said that complainant does not inspire the allegations that after snatching the tractor, the culprit could not play the said tractor in the same vicinity from where it was snatched. Apart from recovery of the said tractor, no other person responsible as alleged in the F.I.R. were placed in the F.I.R. under the complainant they secured. On appraisal of all these circumstances, it appears that a case for further inquiry has been made out to enlarge him on bail. Bail application is, therefore, allowed and the applicant/ accused may be released on bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.two hundred thousand with PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this court. M.W.A./A-11/K Bail allowed.