2000 PLP 1939 (YLR)

Zafar Iqbal Chohan for the Complainant. KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.‑‑‑Abdul Majid son of Abdullah Saleem and Bashir Ahmad son of Kareem Bakhsh seek bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No.246 of 1999 with Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, on 7‑5‑1999 under sections 448/511, 395, 427, 380 & 337‑H(ii), read with section 148/149, P.P.C. .

2. Allegation contained in the First Information Report authored by one Hakeem Zia‑ur‑Rehman is ‑that he runs his Shafakhana and on the fateful day fourteen persons named in the F.I.R. armed with deadly weapons alongwith eight other persons came and demolished ‑his Shafakhana, used force and removed valuables worth thousands of rupees. Motive for the occurrence is stated to be a dispute about the, property with Maulvi Yousaf.

3. Post‑arrest bail was declined by the Additional, Sessions Judge, Okara on 9‑3‑2000.

4. Learned counsel states that the petitioners were not nominated in the F.I.R. but it was only through supplementary statement recorded on 26‑1‑2000 after about, nine months of the registration of the case, that the complainant named the petitioners and that also without disclosing the source of kn6wledge regarding their culpability. It is stressed that no identification parade was held since the petitioners were not nominated in the F.I.R. 1t is further stated that it was only when the petitioners brought a Criminal Miscellaneous No.82‑H that the police hurriedly got recorded the supplementary statement so as to save their skin from improperly and illegally detaining the petitioners. Lastly it is contended that Abdul Majid is a student of 8th class and is below the age of 16 years whereas Bashir is 17/18 years of age. Conversely learned counsel for the complainant stated that it is the police who helped the accused party in delaying the investigation and the petitioners are the two persons amongst eight who were said to accompany the accused although not named in the F.I.R. Learned State Counsel submits that four sons of the petitioner Bashir are absconding.

5. We have attended to the arguments of the respective counsels and have also scanned the record.

6. The petitioners for the first time named in the supplementary statement recorded after delay of nine months on 26‑1‑2000, names of petitioners, without disclosing the source of knowledge from where .he had gathered that the petitioners were culpably involved in the commission of offence in which they were indicted. Admittedly an habeas corpus petition was filed on 27‑1‑2000 for the release of the petitioners contending that they were in illegal and improper detention. The upshot of the discussion keeping all the facts in juxtaposition is that the petitioners have made out a case of further inquiry and probe. Resultantly while accepting the application we exercise our discretion in their favour by allowing bail, provided they‑ furnish security in .the sum of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety each in the like ‑amount to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. Criminal Miscellaneous No.1740/B of 2000 being the same matter as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1412/B of 2000 is disposed of. Copy Dasti. H.B.T:/A-104/L?????????? Bail granted.