' MUZHAR HUSSAIN MINHAS, J.---The petitioners Ghulam Akbar son of Ata Muhammad in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 374-B of 2008 and Ghulam Akbar son of Jalal Khan in Criminal Miscellaneous No.569-B of 2008 are seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 463, dated 20th November, 2007 under sections 382/337-H(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Kot Mubarak, District Dera Ghazi Khan. Since both the aforesaid petitions arise out of one F.I.R., therefore, the same are being disposed of by this single order.
2. Prosecution case, in- brief, is that on the night between 18/19-11-2007 at about 12-00 p.m. Din Muhammad complainant was sleeping in his shop. On knocking of the door, he opened the shop and found both the petitioners armed with kalashnikoves along with their co-accused also armed with deadly weapon, present there. Petitioners aimed their kalashnikoves at the complainant while co-accused Meva and Sher Muhammad alias Puppoo overpowered him and took out an amount of Rs.50,000 and a mobile phone Nokia N-73 from his pocket. Petitioner Ghulam Akbar son of Ata Muhammad kept standing at the door of the shop as a guard during the occurrence. After commission of theft, the accused resorted to aerial firing as a result of which an electric transformer near the complainant's shop was also damaged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ghulam Akbar son of Jalal Khan contends that there is delay of 20 hours in lodging the F.I.R.; that no recovery of weapon or looted property has been effected from the petitioner; that it was a night occurrence and there was no light in the shop, therefore , the identity of the accused is doubtful; that he has been falsely involved on account of political rivalry and that his case calls for further inquiry.
' Learned counsel for Ghulam Akbar son of Ata Muhammad has also advanced the same arguments and has added that co-accused Meva, who allegedly took out the amount and mobile from complainant pocket, has been allowed post-arrest bail by the learned trial Court and that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner except that he stood as a watchman at the door of the shop.
4. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and it has been contended that the petitioners are persons of notorious character and are also involved in some other cases of similar nature. Therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. As far as petitioner Ghulam Akbar son of Jalal Khan, he was allegedly armed with a kalashnikov at the time of occurrence, but during investigation any weapon has not been recovered from him.
The stolen amount or mobile phone as also not been recovered from him. He was also involved in another case F.I.R. No.432, dated 2-11-2007 under section 382, P.P.C. But in that case he has discharged by the learned Illaqa Magistrate vide order, dated 14-11-2007.
6. As regards petitioner Ghulam Akbar son of Ata Muhammad, though any weapon or looted amount etc. Has not been recovered from him also, but during the occurrence, he armed with kalashnikov, kept standing at the door of the complainant's shop and threatened the complainant that it would not be in his interest to raise the alarm and also facilitated his co-accused Meva and Sher Muhammad alias Puppoo in the commission of theft. Apart from the present case, he is involved in case F.I.R. No. 467, dated 21-11-2007 also under section 382/34, P.P.C. In the given circumstances, he is not entitled to concession of bail.
7. For the foregoing reasons, application of Ghulam Akbar son of Jalal Khan is accepted and he is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the application of Ghulam Akbar son of Ata Muhammad is dismissed.