2009 P Cr (PLP)

DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, J.

This bail application is directed against the impugned order, dated 12-5-2008, whereby the bail to the applicant was refused. The facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Ali Bux on 2-2-2008 that he is driver on tractor of Ishaque Chang and went to Talhar Sugar Mills with tractor and trolley duly loaded with sugarcane, when he reached at Hyderabad Badin Road, near cattle Priri of Talhar, Taluka Ghulam Hyder he saw one small car white colour stopped in front of his tractor and five persons came out from the said car duly armed with pistols. Out of which, one person identified by him as Gullan alias Gul Muhammad Awan and four other unknown persons, out of them, three were smart and one heavy person, who were driving the car. All persons were with open faces. The accused persons pulled out him from tractor and two persons took away the tractor ahead and at some distance, the accused persons left the trolley at the road and took away the tractor. The three remaining accused took him in a car and left him at village Baqar Nizamani sugarcane crop and robbed Rs.4,200, driving licence and N.I.C. card and they ran away. He then came in village Baqar Nizamani and villagers on humanitarian ground hired the car for him and on the said car he went to village Soomar Chang, where he narrated the facts to his Zamindar and others. Thereafter he remained in search of tractor and accused persons, but could not succeed, therefore, the above stated F.I.R. was lodged under sections 365, 341, P.P.C. read with section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property Ordinance, 1979. After usual investigation, police arrested the applicant on 10-2-2008 and submitted challan before the competent Court of law. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged incident is un-witnessed and the F.I.R. was lodged after delay of six days, but no explanation was offered. She further submits that the lodgement of F.I.R. is due to an old enmity between the parties. In support of her contention, she has filed various documents consisting of copies of telegrams and newspapers clippings etc. Admittedly, as per contents of F.I.R., the persons of locality were available,' but they have not been associated while forcibly taking robbing of tractor and taking away the complainant in a car, which is violative of the provision of section 103, Cr.P.C. She further submits that there is dispute between the complainant and applicant over the land and which is yet to be determined during trial. She also contends to put the applicant into pressure, the complainant filed a false case against him. She, however, also submits that the matter between the applicant and complainant has already been resolved through a compromise. Syed Madad Ali Shah learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant also confirms that the matter has already been resolved in between the complainant and the applicant by a compromise on the intervention of the Nekmards of the locality and he has no objection for the grant of bail to the applicant. He also filed affidavit of the complainant in this regard, who is present in Court, which is taken on record. On Court query, the complainant states that he has no objection, if the bail to the applicant is granted. Learned State Counsel also raised no objection for the grant of bail to the applicant. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant referred cases of Mukhtar Ahmad v. State reported in 1999 PCr.LJ 1107 and the case of Muhammad Ismail v. State reported in 2006 MLD 437 and submits that in such situation where the compromise between complainant and applicant is effected and in spite of the fact that the offence is not compoundable, but on the basis of such compromise, bail was granted to the applicant. She further submits that in pursuance of the aforementioned case-laws, facts and circumstances, .the applicant may be enlarged on bail. In view of the affidavit of complainant who has no objection for the grant of bail to the applicant on the basis of compromise, case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the applicant and no objection raised by the learned State Counsel and Advocate for the complainant, the bail to the applicant is granted subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and P.R. bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./G-36/K Bail granted.