1. ' MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.---Applicant Muhammad Faisal Khan who has been challaned in a case registered under sections 392/395, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No.185 of 2003 at Police Station Orangi Ext. Has moved this bail application.
2. ' Facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 30-7-2003 three persons on gun point had entered in the house of the complainant bearing No.1730, Gali No.1, Mujahid Colony, Ghaziabad, Orangi Town and had robbed a Honda 70, two movie Cameras, golden ornaments and made their escape good from the place of incident. Complainant was informed by the inmates of the house.
3. He came at the place of incident where his father, mother, sister and sister-in-law were present.
4. They intimated the complainant about the robbery committed in the house.
5. ' F.I.R. Was lodged on 30-3-2003, After about two years on 2-10-2005 applicant Muhammad Faisal Khan was arrested. He moved bail application before the learned trial Court as well as before this Court but all of them were rejected. This is second bail application before this Court.
6. ' It is argued by learned counsel for applicant that now two witnesses have been examined in the matter but none of them have implicated the present applicant in the commission of offence, hence on this fresh ground present bail application has been preferred.
7. ' From the perusal of record it is found that the statements of prosecution witnesses, referred by learned counsel for applicant were recorded on 3-1-2004 and 7-2-2005, much earlier to the arrest of this applicant on 2-10-2005 and it was because of this fact that this applicant was not specifically identified by prosecution witnesses.
8. Even otherwise, both prosecution witnesses whose statements have been placed on record by applicant admittedly were .Not eye-witnesses and they received information of the incident through their parents, sister and sister-in-law, so even if this applicant would have been arrested and would had been present at the time of their examination probably they would not be in a position to identify him. None of the eye-witnesses who were ' present at the time of offence, have been examined. Anyhow in spite of all, the grounds raised by learned counsel for applicant that after arrest of this applicant on 2-10-2005 no identification parade was held, hence under these circumstances implication of him on the basis of 164, Cr.P.C. Statement of co-accused Najam- usSaher will be highly doubtful. Anyhow, under Article 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat it can be taken into consideration if circumstantial evidence against the persons, who are being tried jointly for the same offence are same. The first bail application of this applicant was rejected on the same analogy that both co-accused Naj am- us -Saher and this applicant have been challaned in the same offence but the circumstances ' which developed after arrest of this applicant till today, that in spite of expiry of about two years neither any identification parade has been held nor any witness after his arrest has been examined, the grounds as considered for rejection of bail of this applicant, in the earlier order of 18-1-2006 needs reconsideration.
9. ' So far as the absconsion of this applicant after incident is concerned, it is pleaded by learned counsel that the address of this applicant as shown in the challan is not correct and that's why the warrant issued against him could not be served. He had not absconded but could not appear as he was unaware of it and the warrants were not served on him.
10. ' It is further pleaded by him that as per contents of F.I.R. And the statements of prosecution witnesses, three culprits entered the house of complainant with intent to commit robbery, whereas prosecution had challaned five persons. According to learned counsel, nothing was recovered from the possession of this applicant at the time of his arrest and he has been falsely implicated in the matter without any just reason, therefore, applicant is entitled for the grant of bail not only on merits but also on the role consistency as one co-accused Ikramul Haq has been granted bail by this Court on 1-2-2006.
11. In view of facts and grounds taken and discussed above, learned counsel for the State has conceded to the fact that at the time of arrest of this applicant nothing was recovered from his possession, hence he cannot be taken at a par to co-accused Najum-us-Saher.
12. ' For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that applicant is confined .In jail for the last about two years With no progress in the matter. NOthing was recovered from the possession of this applicant.
13. The main eye-witness have not been examined till now. No identification parade has been held.
14. Hence reviewing my previous observations, I hereby grant bail to this applicant subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.