2011 PLP 1944 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.

The applicant in this case is booked in Crime No.196 of 2009 under section 17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 of Police Station A-Section, Latifabad, Hyderabad. The brief facts as summarized in the F.I.R. are that on 17th June, 2009 when the complainant was not at home, three persons entered into the house of complainant and residents of the house were terrorized by show of weapons and robbed golden ornaments, prize bonds and cash. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that robbed articles were kept in a pillow cover and the persons who robbed the articles departed from the house. On receipt of telephonic call, the complainant reached the house and thereafter, search was made by complainant and other occupants of the house and it was noticed that gold ornaments, prize bonds and cash have been robbed. Accordingly, the aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of bail application has submitted that a bare reading of F.I.R. shows that neither the name of any accused has been mentioned in the F.I.R. nor the description of such persons is given. He says that police had arrested the present applicant somewhere on 1st August, 2009 and news item was flashed in daily 'Kawish' Hyderabad on 2nd August, 2009. He has further invited my attention to another news item published in daily 'Kawish' Hyderabad on 8-8-2009 wherein the photographs of accused persons including the present applicant were made and it was also mentioned in the said news item, the description of recovery effected from such accused persons. Learned counsel says that identification parade in the matter was conducted in violation of law and that too while the present applicant along with other accused persons was in custody for about 09 days. He further says that applicant is not connected with the commission of offence and no robbed article has been recovered from the applicant. He further says that recovery effected from the accused persons including the present applicant was never confronted to the complainant or his family members. He says that recovery effected in some other case from the applicant and other co-accused have been foisted in the present case upon the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel says that learned trial Court has not applied its independent mind to the material available on record and while disposing of the bail application, the order was passed in a mechanic manner without appreciating the material and examining the law. He says that applicant be admitted to bail as he has already remained behind the bars for about 16 months. He further says that in the trial Court charge has been framed but no progress whatsoever has been taken place. Conversely, learned D.P.-G. for the State has failed to point out any evidence available on record which prima facie connects the present applicant with the commission of offence. It is settled law that deeper appreciation cannot be gone into at the bail stage however a tentative assessment is to be made just to find out as to whether present applicant is connected with the commission of offence or not. Keeping in mind the above legal position, if record of present case is examined, it will be noticed that no name or description of the accused persons is given in the F.I.R. It is also admitted position that identification parade was held after about 09 days of the arrest of present applicant and the delay has not been explained by the prosecution. Prima facie contention of learned counsel for the applicant appears to be correct that identification was held while the present applicant was in custody however other aspects of the matter will be dealt with by the trial Court once the evidence is recorded in the matter. Since the recovery allegedly made from the present applicant has not been confronted to the complainant or his residents which prima facie creates doubt as to whether the present applicant is connected with the commission of offence or not. The present applicant has made out a case of further inquiry in terms of provisions of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, I allow this bail application and admit the present applicant to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (One lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needless to mention that any observation made in the above order is tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court. Since it is an old matter, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the same preferably within a period of four months. N.H.Q./I-6/K Bail granted.