' GULZAR AHMED, J.---Applicant Meeral alias Meero son of Abdul Rasheed Panhwar has approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail in Crime No,74 of 2006, Police Station Rukkan, in offence under sections 324, 353, 148 and 149, P.P.C. And 17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The applicant has initially filed pre-arrest bail application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Dadu, who vide his order dated 5-7-2006 dismissed the same.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint has been lodged by a police official though allegation against the applicant is of robbing private persons. He has further stated that there is a delay in lodging of F.I.R. Of one day and two hours, although, the police station was about two furlongs away from the place of incident. He has further stated that the F.I.R.
Contains general allegations of robbing of cash amount, mobile phones and some documents without any specification as to how much amount was robbed and how much mobile phones were robbed and what was the nature of the documents even the persons from whom such robbery has been committed are not mentioned. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that though allegation of encounter with police party is made, but no injury has been suffered by any of the persons of police party and that investigation has been completed. Challan has been submitted but no recovery has been made from the applicant. He has further stated that no statement of private witness has been recorded in the investigation. He has further stated that the implication of the present applicant in this offence is based on specific mala fide for the reason that the father of the applicant has lodged a direct complaint against five persons, among whom four were police officials and one private person, which has been decided by judgment dated 4-8- 2005. He has stated that the case against the applicant is false, inasmuch as that at no stage of the investigation the I.O. Has called him.
4. Learned Asstt. A.-G. Opposes the granting of pre-arrest bail to the applicant, on the basis that crime alleged against him is heinous. On examination of the police papers learned Asstt. A.-G.
Concedes that the Investigating Officer during investigation, did not summon the applicant for the investigation of the case and that the challan has been submitted. He has stated that applicant is not shown as absconder in the challan. With regard to the recovery of empties from the place of vardat, learned Asstt. A.-G. States that Mashirnama of recovery shows that 20 empties of rifle and 8 empties of .12 bore gun have been recovered from the place of vardat.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have gone through the record.
6. The delay in lodging of F.I.R. Apparently is not satisfactorily explained. Though, it is stated in the F.I.R. That driver of Coaster Sardar Ahmed Mazari has informed the police officer that accused persons have robbed amount, some mobile phones, documents and N.I.Cs, but neither the said Sardar Ahmed Mazari has made complaint, nor any other passenger of the Coaster has made complaint of robbery from them. Though statement of private witnesses including that of the driver under section 161, Cr.P.C. Is said to have been recorded, but in such statement none of the accused persons is named and the Investigating Officer has not bothered even to hold identification of the applicant through the private witnesses. Learned A.A.-G. Submits that the private witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have not specified the amount of B cash and number of mobile phones and documents that are stated to be robbed from them and only a general allegation has been made against the accused persons. The other relevant factor that emerges from the record is that the complainant in the F.I.R. Has alleged that there was encounter of about fifteen minutes, in which both police officials as well as accused persons have fired. The complainant has stated that he has fired 30 shots from his official SMG and with regard to further firing, other police officials will give the number of the shots fired by them. The recovery of 28 empties from the place of vardat is not consistent with the number of shots fired as alleged in the F.I.R. No injury is suffered by any of the parties i.e, either from complainant side or from the accused side. The fact of filing of direct complaint by the, applicant's father against the police officials as mentioned in the judgment dated 4-8-2005 of the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, Annexure 'D' to the application is not disputed. The applicant's case is that one of the accused namely Gul Hassan in the said direct complaint is a cousin of the present complainant, both being by caste Brehmani.
7. After considering all the above facts, circumstances and the record, I am of the considered view that the case of the present applicant is of further inquiry and he is entitled to the grant of bail. The fact that he has been implicated due to enmity cannot be ruled out as the judgment Annexure-D, does show that as many as four police officials were the accused persons in the direct complaint case, which was initiated by the father of the applicant. This bail application is, therefore, allowed and the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant vide 'order dated 12-7-2006 is confirmed on the terms and conditions mentioned therein.