' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---The applicant, through this applicant seeks post-arrest bail in crime No,42 of 2008 of Police Station Thull, for offences under section 337-F(i), 34, P.P.C. And sections 17(3) and 17(2) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, vide order, dated 18-9-2009. Hence this bail application.
2. Briefly, the facts of prosecution case are that on 10-3-2008, the complainant Mohabbat Khan son of Sardar Saeed Khan Kandrani lodged his above F.I.R. That on 2-2-2008, the complainant along with his brother Nisar Ahmed was going to Jacobabad on his motorcycle and at about 10-00 a.m., when they reached on Dingri Bridge near Railway Station Thull, four persons duly armed emerged there. Out of whom one was identified to be Sanhoon alias Sanaullah son of Abdul Jameel alias Faqir Bona, and three were unknown persons. Sanhoon alias Sanaullah and one unknown person were armed with Kalashnikovs and rest two persons were carrying gun and pistol. The all culprits caused butt blows to the complainant. Sanhoon alias Sanaullah snatched cash of Rs,20,000, one mobile set of K-750 Sony Erricsson Company, one locket of gold weighing three tolas; and one finger Ring of gold weighing one tola from the complainant, one unknown person snatched mobile set of N-70 Nokia Com,: nny from Nisar Ahmed. The complainant party raised cries, which attracted Abdul Ghaffar son of Nazar Muhammad and Asghar Ali son of Dodo Kandrani, seeing them coming the accused along with the robbed articles ran way. After 17 days of the incident this F.I.R. Was lodged by the complainant on 10-3-2008.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the F.I.R. Was lodged after 17 days of the incident and the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., of prosecution witnesses, namely, Nisar Ahmed, Abdul Ghaffar and Asghar Ali were recorded for further delay of five days that is to say after 22 days of the incident without any plausible explanation, no recovery of any incriminating article has been effected from the applicant, during the investigation the applicant was found innocent and the case against him was recommended for its disposal being false under class-"B", the applicant has been involved in this case due to political rivalry between the complainant party and the applicant and as such the case of the applicant requires further enquiry into his guilt. He has placed his reliance upon 1982 SCM R 440, 2005 PCr.LJ 452, 2007 M LD 806 and 1993 SCM R 550.
4. The learned State counsel has frankly conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by both the counsel and have gone through the police papers with the assistance of learned State counsel. I find that the F.I.R. Was lodged with delay of 17 days, the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of prosecution witnesses were recorded after 22 days of the incident and there is no plausible explanation offered by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay in lodging, the F.I.R. And recording statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of the P.Ws., which prima facie creates doubt as the possibility of introducing the name of the applicant after deliberations and consultations cannot be ruled out. The Hon'ble Superior Courts conceded bail to the accused in the cases involving such an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.Rs, and recording the statements of prosecution witnesses without plausible explanation. I also find that no incriminating article was recovered from the applicant. Moreover, the applicant was found innocent during the investigation.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the applicant falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., which entitles him to the grant of bail, therefore, bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs,300,000 (three hundred thousands), subject to his furnishing solvent surety and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.