The brief facts of the matter per FIR No, 23/2003 lodged at PS Ibrahim Hydri on 13.3.2003 are that on the same date at 0050 hours the Complainant, who was available at his house received a call on his mobile phone from one Abdul Jabbar who asked him to come outside as he had to talk to the Complainant about some plot. The Complainant upon emerging from his house saw that a golden coloured car was slanding outside from which accused namely Zafar Iqbal, Aurangzeb, Ch. Rafique, Iftikhar and Hussain emerged duly armed. They caught the Complainant and took him away and gave him a beating as a result of which his right leg was broken his left leg was fractured and he also received internal injuries on both his arms and other parts of his body. They also snatched Rs, 1,30,000/- from the Complainant as well as his mobile phone and threatened to kill him. As he had become unconscious his brother Mehmood Zakir took him to Jinnah Hospital for medical treatment and thereafter he went home when the report was filed.
2. Earlier Cr. Bail Application No, 610/2003 filed by the Applicant before this Court was dismissed by myself on merits whereafter the Applicant again filed another bail application before the Learned Trial Court on the ground that all the three private Prosecution witnesses have completely exonerated the Accused/Applicant and so also the Complainant Nasir Mehmood had given an affidavit that the matter had been compromised between himself and the Accused. However the said bail application was dismissed by the Learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.12.2003 and hence the present bail application.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has only urged one ground for the grant of bail viz. that all the eye-witnesses have exonerated the Applicant vide affidavits attached with this Application and so also, per the Affidavit of the Complainant the matter has been patched up between the Parties.
Learned Counsel submits further that even though the offence viz under Sections 395/337 PPC is not compoundable bail can be considered for which proposition he has cited Mukhtar Ahmed vs. the State (1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1106), Muhammad Akram vs. the State (1995 M LD 1826), Mst. Elahi alias Bibi vs. the State (1997 P.Cr.L.J. 1193) and Ghulam Ali vs. the State (1997 SCM R 1411).
4. Mr. Arshad Lodhi, Learned AAG, has stated that in view of the compromise between the parties and the affidavits filed by the eye-witnesses he would have no objection to the grant of this application. Mr. Attique Ahmed Siddiqui for the Complainant has also not opposed this bail application.
5. I have heard both the Learned Counsel as well as the Learned AAG. It would be seen that earlier the applicants bail was rejected by my self on the ground that prima facie sufficient evidence was available to connect him to the crime in question which finding was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr. Petition No, 74-K/2003. However, now it appears that the Prosecution witnesses including the mashirs of recovery have resited from such mashirnamas as well as their 161 Cr.P.C. Statements per their affidavits attached to this Application. Hence in the circumstances of the case ultimate conviction of the Applicant has become doubtful. Consequently, at this stage, the Applicant is entitled to bail. Above are the reasons for the short order passed on 27.1.2004 whereby bail was granted to the Applicant.