' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---By this application under section 497, Cr.P.C., applicant has moved this Court for grant of bail in Crime No.343 of 2004, Police. Station, Beghdadi, Karachi wherein he has been charged with the allegations of commission of offence. Punishable under section 392, P.P.C.
2. According to the prosecution story, on 30-12-2004 at 2020 hours applicant entered into the PCO of complainant, when his grand son Ghulam Mustafa son of Chand Khan was sitting at the counter, as complainant had gone to the washroom. Thereafter, by putting his pistol at Ghulam Mustafa he robbed Rs.10,000 from the cash counter and also calling cards worth Rs.10,000 while leaving the PCO he was also seen by the complainant, who had entered in the PCO when applicant was leaving it with robbed money and calling cards.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that on 13-2-2005, on the pointation of complainant applicant was arrested and a dummy pistol was recovered from his possession. The applicant is in custody since 13-2-2005 as his bail application moved before the trial Court was rejected on 6-10-2006.
4. Mr. Muhammad Asif Malik, learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is .Not a nominated accused in the crime, but at some later stage he has been arrested on the pointation of complainant and the whole story of involving the applicant in the commission of crime is manipulated, due to the dispute between the applicant and the son of the complainant. He further contends that for no fault of the applicant criminal case pending against him before the trial Court has not concluded, and in such circumstances the applicant being in custody for over one and half year is entitled to be admitted to bail, particularly for the reason that his case also calls for further inquiry as to his guilt.
5. Mr. Ismatullah Niazi learned State counsel has opposed this bail application.
' He contends that after arrest, applicant was also put to identification parade on 17-2-2005 wherein he was identified by Ghul am Mustafa the grand son of complainant. Therefore, no case for grant of bail is made out.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perused the case record. Admittedly the applicant is not a nominated accused in the crime nor any alleged robbed articles have been recovered from his possession. Even the pistol recovered from his possession is stated to be dummy. The holding of identification parade by the police after 4 days of his arrest is also not understandable, as the applicant, according to the prosecution story, was arrested at the A pointation of the complainant himself, and there is no plausible explanation for the delay of four days.
7. This being the position, the case of the applicant needs further inquiry as to his guilt, which entitle him for grant of bail. The application is, therefore, allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing his surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.