' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.--- The applicant Muhammad Zaman, is involved in Crime No,29 of 2008, registered at Police Station Tando Bago, under section 17(3), Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and 506 and 34, P.P.C.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 5-3-2008 at 1900 hours complainant Abdul Khalique lodged his report at Police Station Tando Bago, stating therein that he is News Reporter of daily "Kawish" and has also a general store in Shadi Large. On 9-2-2008 at about 11-00 p.m. After closing the general store when he reached at his house, accused Muhammad Zaman (applicant), Bhooro armed with pistol and Khuda Bux armed with hatchet along with two other unknown persons who were armed with Lathies, who were standing in the street of his house on the show of their respective weapon, have robbed him of Rs,4,500 which were lying in his pocket. Thereafter all the accused persons after seeing Abdul Karim and Abdullah coming towards them ran away. In the morning complainant narrated the facts to the relatives of accused Muhammad Zaman, Bhooro and Khuda Bux, who stated that they will make Faisla, but thereafter, no Faisla was done.
Thereafter, the complainant lodged the F.I.R. At Police Station Tando Bago.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has produced a photocopy of the order passed in Criminal Bail Application No,339 of 2008, in which bail was granted by this Court to two co-accused Khuda Bux and Bhooro on the ground of further inquiry, and on the grounds that the F.I.R. Was lodged after delay of 26 days, no specific role has been assigned and no recovery has been made.
4. The bail plea of the applicant was rejected by the trial Court vide order, dated 14-4-2008.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. Was lodged after unexplained delay of 26 days after consultation. He then submits that the provisions of E.H.O. Are not applicable as the robbed property is below the value of Nisab provided in the statute. He then submits that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the rule of consistency demand that bail may be confirmed in favour of applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the reported case of Zahid v. The State 2007 YLR 145 (Karachi).
6. The learned State Counsel has opposed the bail plea on the ground that applicant remained absconder. Section 392, P.P.C. Is applicable, the punishment of which is 10 years and the case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. He then submits that the grounds for grant of bail after arrest cannot be considered for grant of pre-arrest bail and the rule of consistency is not available in this case.
7. The allegation against the applicant is that he along with other four co-accused robbed the applicant on gunpoint and caused him loss of Rs,4,500. Admittedly, the F.I.R. Was lodged after unexplained delay of 26 days. It is true that delay in lodging the F.I.R. Itself never considered sufficient for grant of bail. However, delay could be taken into consideration along with other circumstances of the case. In the same matter the other co-accused having same role were granted bail and rule of consistency demands that similar concession be granted to the applicant.
8. Furthermore, the applicant in the affidavit in support of his bail application has pleaded that in case the bail is not granted to him he will be humiliated and harassed and the police is bent upon to arrest him due to influence of the complainant party.
9. It is an admitted position that the complainant is a news reporter and the possibility of his influence over the police cannot be ruled out for the reason that police has misapplied the provisions of E.H.O. And in this regard the mala fide of the prosecution cannot be ruled out.
10. In the reported case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another 1986 SCM R 1380, the Honourable Supreme Court has refused to cancel the bail before arrest granted to the accused person while observing as under:--- "After hearing the learned counsel we feel that prima facie, at this stage, the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of others to whom bail has been allowed. No useful purpose would be served if the bail of Zafar Ullah Khan respondent is cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he would again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused are already on bail. We, therefore, in the circumstances of this case, do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. This petition accordingly, is dismissed."
11. In this case also two other accused similarly placed were granted bail after arrest and no purpose will be served in dismissing this bail application.
12. For the above reason the bail was confirmed by short order, dated 7-7-2008.