1. ' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, Dismissed having become infructuous.
2. The applicants have requested for bail in crime No,9 of 2006, registered under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 of Police Station, Lakhi Gate, Shikarpur.
2. ' As per F.I.R. Registered on 8th March, 2006 at. About 11-30 a.m., three persons entered into the house of the complainant and on the basis of the T.T. Pistols th,,'y took away four gold sets weighing 40 tolas, Rs,2,96,000 cash and prize bonds of Rs,70,000. The applicants were arrested after 14 days of lodging the F.I.R.
3. ' The learned Advocate for the applicants argued that the names of the applicants do not appear in the F.I.R. And the applicants have been arrested on the basis of the alleged identification parade.
4. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the applicants that the names of the dummies were not mentioned in the mashirnama of identification.
5. ' The learned State counsel contended that the applicants were arrested after 14 days of the lodging of the F.I.R. And duly picked up in the identification parade and that "Hulias" of the applicants are fully given in the F.I.R.
6. ' I have taken in consideration the respective arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record.
7. ' It appears that though the applicants were arrested after 14 days but the names of the dummies are not mentioned in the mashirnama of identification and further no recovery has been effected so far from the applicants. It is yet to be decided whether section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, is attracted to the facts of the present case, particularly, in the absence of two eyewitnesses. Since no recovery has been effected from the applicants nor their names appear in the F.I.R., the applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.