2011 PLP 1279 (MLD)

Incident pertains to the commission of the offence of section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 said to have been committed by three unknown persons while on Motor-bike against the complainant party consisting of three persons carrying a bag full of cash of Rs.2277,000 which they had received from nearby Bank against encashment of a cheque, on the given date as reported against. None was arrested on the spot as the culprits after commission of the offence in question; are said to have managed to escape. The report was made and F.I.R. in question, was registered instantly against unknown persons under the aforesaid section of law. The case was charge-sheeted. The applicant was arrested on 20-5-2008 after 11 days of the F.I.R. which is dated 9-5-2010. The applicant was found in possession of Rs.15,000 cash and an unlicensed TT pistol (with no bullets). He was put to identification test after two days of his arrest before the Magistrate concerned, through the witnesses. In such process, he was picked up as one of the accused of the incident. The case has been charge sheeted in the Court of law in which the applicant was shown, in custody whereas other two whose particulars are said to have been disclosed by the applicant were placed in the relevant column thereof as absconding. The applicant is in jail in the instant case for more than two years with no progress in the matter of trial in-question. The first bail application moved in the Court of first instance for and on behalf of the applicant has been rejected. Learned counsel in support of his bail application contended that the case of the prosecution is confined to the identification parade test and recovery of Rs.15,000 and that of the TT pistol which according to him is weak in nature and does not prima facie necessarily make the applicant guilty of the offence and the matter therefore needs further enquiry, besides, as per the learned counsel the applicant was of tender age being below eighteen years at the time of commission of the offence, and therefore, benefit of such aspect, which has been extended in such like cases as a matter of practice of the superior Courts, is open to the applicant. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the applicant, has cited the case of Muhammad Anwar v. The State reported in 1983 SCMR 1001 the paragraph 3 whereof runs: "The learned Assistant Advocate General could not raise any objection against the genuineness of the school leaving certificate or the entries therein. We are of the opinion that the view expressed by the police was not sufficient to reject the appellant's plea of tender age in view of the entries in the certified copy of the school leaving certificate. The appeal is, therefore, accepted and the appellant Muhammad Anwar is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Bhalwal." The said citation of law is relevant in the matter. Otherwise also, the case appears to be one of further enquiry as rightly pin-pointed by the learned counsel for the applicant. The State Counsel has no objection. The application is allowed. The applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S-52/K Bail granted.