1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.- Learned counsel for the applicants submits that F.I.R. Has been lodged by the complainant who has a grudge with the applicants as they bring their cattle for grazing in his field and due to that some dispute had arisen. Learned counsel submits that story narrated in the F.I.R. Is apparently false as even the Wagon number in which complainant and his colleagues were travelling had not been given ilor name of the driver or other passenger is given, nor any identity of them has been obtained by the complainant nor police has made any effort to place any of the neutral person of the Wagon or the driver as the witness, but the companions of the complainant are only shown as witnesses. He further submits that the alleged incident took place on 26-5-2006 but the F.I.R. Has been lodged on 28-5-2006 i.e. With two days' delay which has not been explained and from the contents of the F.I.R. It appears that there was negotiation for return of the robbed mobile and amount, which was not possible as the complainant would have immediately gone, to police station for report.
2. ' Mr. M. Ismail Bhutto, State Cbunsel has only objected on the ground that mobile has been recovered.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and perusal of the F.I.R. It appears that the applicants and .Complainant are known to each other as not only names of the applicants but their fathers names and residential addresses are also mentioned. There is no independent witness nor the Wagon number while the recovery of the mobile cannot be given -such a weight to deny the applicant bail to contest the matter. In the circumstances it appears that the case seems tp be cf further inquiry hence applicants are admitted te bail in the sum of Rs. 100,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.