1. ' MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.-- First Information Report No,3 of 2006 was registered at Police Station Digri under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 341, 342, 34, P.P.C. By one Rana Muhammad Younis son of Nizamuddin Rajput, implicating his own driver and cleaner along with seven unknown persons with muffled faces involved in the commission of crime. Whereby ten thousands liters of diesel and five thousands liters petrol was removed from the oil tanker driven by Muhammad Ishtiaq and his accomplice which was to be supplied to Tando Jan Muhammad. Empty tanker was found available within the jurisdiction of Police Station Digri Nawabshah, it was got released, subsequent thereof the applicant was arrested in the commission of crime on 10-6-2006, Mashirnama of recovery of Rs,5,600 was prepared and the applicant was produced before Judicial Magistrate, where his confessional statement was recorded after 13 days of the arrest.
2. ' Mr. Syed Madad Ally Shah, learned counsel for applicant has contended that the first information report was lodged after two months and eight days of alleged incident against the culprits who were having muffled faces later the applicant was arrested, booked in the commission of crime on the basis of his alleged confessional statement recorded after 13 days of arrest in Sindhi language by Judicial Magistrate while the applicant is Urdu speaking. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on case of S. Muhammad Hashim and 3 others v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1167 (Karachi) and Abdul Haleem v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ (Karachi) 611.
3. ' Mr. Rasheed A. Qureshi, learned counsel for State has fairly admitted that robbed petrol and diesel was not secured by the Investigating Officer nor the alleged confession was recorded soon after arrest of the applicant.
4. It is apparently clear from the first information report that culprits having muffled faces when they committed the offence, after the arrest of applicant no recovery was effected by police from his possession of diesel and petrol. The confessional statement was recorded after 13 days of the arrest of applicant though on several occasions he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of obtaining his remand which cast shadow on the prosecution case and benefit is to be resolved in favour of the applicant at bail stage. In this view I am fortified by the dictum laid down in the case of Abdul Karim alias Baboo and another v. The State 2006 SCM R 813 and Ahmed- ud-Din v. The State 1998 Cr.LJ 721.
5. ' Having regards the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that doubtful nature of the confessional statement of applicant falls within the purview of further inquiry, accordingly bail is granted to the applicant subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousands) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.