1. ' GULZAR AHMAD, J.---The occurrence in this case is alleged to have taken place on 15-11-2001 at 0815 hours and such occurrence has been reported at Police Station, Taluka Larkana District Larkana on 15-1-2001 at 1800 hours in which Rustam Ali, complainant, has alleged that he along his maternal cousin Roshan Ali were going to Larkana on bicycle when on the link road near the Olive Garden of Dur Muhammad Jatoi, the applicant along with his other companions stopped him on the gun point and one of the companions of the applicant namely Suleman caused butt blows to the complainant and snatched from him Rs,950 and also took his wrist watch. The complainant has alleged that there were five persons out of which he has named two persons Muhammad Suleman and the present applicant Ali Gul, in the F.I.R., while three persons were unknown. He has alleged that while occurrence was taking place S.H.O. Inspector Ghulam Abbas Gadehi and some other police officials arrived at the place of incident. All the accused persons escaped only the applicant was apprehended along with a DBBL gun and cartridges. The F.I.R. Was recorded under sections 392, 337-A(II), F(I), P.P.C. And 6/7 of ATC. The applicant had moved the trial Court for grant of bail who vide its order dated 3-9-2002 has rejected the same.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that no role has been assigned to the applicant in commission of the alleged crime and that mashirs of recovery of gun from him are not the complainant or his maternal cousin Roshan Ali but only the police officials. He has also contended that the applicant is alleged to have been arrested from the spot while all other accused have managed to escape, no recovery of any stolen item was made from the applicant. The applicant has not been assigned any role that of (sic). Learned counsel states that the applicant is entitled to grant of bail as the case is of further enquiry. He has relied upon the case of Muhammad Asif Mumtaz v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 283.
3. ' Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned Assistant A.G. Appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the applicant was apprehended from the spot.
4. ' I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel and have examined the record. Although the applicant is named in the F.I.R. But no role of any sort has been assigned to him in the commission of crime. The recovery of gun from the applicant is not witnessed by the complainant or his maternal cousin Roshan Ali, in whose presence the applicant is alleged to have been arrested with a gun and cartridges. The remaining four accused persons are stated to have escaped from the scene despite the arrival of five police officials. In my view these are sufficient ground for grant of bail and the case appears to be of further enquiry. I therefore, admit the applicant to bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and a P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
5. ' This bail application accordingly stands disposed of.