1. 'MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.---The case of the prosecution as incorporated in the F.I.R. Registered on 21-2-2008 is that about one and half month ago, when the complainant along with his Driver on FIAT Tractor was, coming back and reached near cement factory at Pano Akil at night time they found certain culprits present there. They gave signal to stop. Complainant stopped the tractor.
2. Culprits told them that they are police officials, they led down the complainant from the tractor and snatched mobile phone and Rs,3,000. Thereafter complainant party was directed to sit in a car and they were brought to Bari Chowk, Choohara Mandi. The complainant party's eyes were tied down and when they were crossing the river, culprits one by one escaped. Thereafter complainant party opened their hands and eyes and called the police and informed them about the robbery committed. Complainant also contacted with culprits on robbed mobile phone and they told to wait for some days and promised to return tractor. On further contact accused persons demanded Rs,70,000 as ransom for return of stolen property and thereafter kept complainant on false hopes, hence this F.I.R.
3. 'It is stated that learned counsel for the applicant that though according to complainant during negotiation he knew names of culprits but neither name of the applicant has been shown in the F.I.R. Nor any attempt to register the case against the culprits was made at early stage. F.I.R. Is delayed by 1 1/2 month with no plausible explanation.
4. 'The grounds urged by learned Assistant A.G. That as talks of compromise were going on in- between the parties, therefore, complainant had waited for about 1/2 month does not appear to be good ground for relaxation of delay.
5. 'It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that incident took place within the jurisdiction of Police Station Abad whereas F.I.R. Was registered at Police Station Rohri which needs probe in the matter. Relying on order passed in Criminal Bail Application No,208 of 2008 learned counsel has also taken plea of rule of consistency that co-accused has been granted bail by this Court on 10-6-2008 and the prosecution has not been able to make out case against this applicant.
6. From the perusal of the record it appears that apart from the other grounds urged by learned counsel for the applicant, delay in registration of the F.I.R. Is sufficient which has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. Hence, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants by this Court on 16-5-2009 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.