2018 PLP 3 (YLRN)

ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR, J.

The applicants Abdul Rasheed, Kangar Khan and Saddam Hussain seek post-arrest bail in Crime No.23 of 2017 dated 10.3.2017, under sections 395, 34, P.P.C. lodged with City Police Station, Mastung.

2. Plea of post-arrest bail of the applicant did not find favour with the Sessions Judge, Mastung, who dismissed his bail application bearing No.37 of 2017, vide order dated 05.05.2017, hence this application.

3. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that on 9.3.2017, son of the complainant, namely Maqsood Ahmed, who is student of Madrasa Miftah-ul-Aloom, informed him (complainant Hafiz Muhammad Tayyab) that at about 3:40 p.m., when he was coming from Madrasa, near Killi Ghulam Prinz, six armed persons, ridding on three motorcycles, forcibly snatched his motor-cycle bearing Engine No.DSE1471826, Chassis No.DSC2472684, Model 2016 and made their escape good.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that neither the names of the accused persons have been mentioned nor any description has been mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel further submitted that as per FIR the alleged occurrence took place on 9.3.2017 at about 3:40 p.m. but the matter was reported to police on 10.3.2017 at about 2:30 p.m. after delay of about 21/22 hours without any explanation. Learned counsel added that there is no material available against the applicants to connect them with the commission of offence except disclosure of accused Kangar Khan. He submitted that this is a case where further inquiry is called for, thus, the applicants are entitled for grant of bail.

5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and supported the impugned order.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record. It is admitted position that the alleged occurrence took place on 9.3.2017 at about 3:40 p.m. whereas the FIR was lodged on 10.3.2017 at about 2:30 p.m. after a considerable delay of about 21/22 hours without any explanation, 21/22 hours delay in lodging of FIR provides sufficient time for deliberation and consultation, for which the complainant had given no explanation, which makes the case of the applicants one of further inquiry. Admittedly, the accused/applicants have not been nominated in the FIR; during investigation, no incriminating material was recovered from their possession; that there is no direct evidence available with the complainant against the applicants and they were implicated on the disclosure of co-accused Kangar Khan. The evidentiary status of the alleged disclosure can be seen and determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence. The detention of the applicant/accused incarceration will not serve any useful purpose because the challan has been submitted in the trial Court, but there is yet to be any progress, which accordingly, is at initial stage and as such, in absence of any exceptional circumstances, grant of bail to an accused is a right, which should be given to the accused and refusal is an exception, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488), Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708) and Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34).

7. From perusal of the record of the case in hand, it appears that this case required further enquiry for the aforesaid reasons in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, applicants Abdul Rasheed, Kangar Khan and Saddam Hussain are admitted to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac) each and PR bond of like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court or the trial Court. The observations made hereinabove are of tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on merits of the case. WA/91/Bal. Bail granted.