1. ' SYED SHAFQAT ALI SHAH MASOOMI, J.---By this application, applicant Zahid Ali Jatoi has sought bail in Crime No,102 of 2004 registered with Police Station Thariri Muhabat for an offence under section 17/3 H.O.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Haji Muhammad Yousif on 19-7-2004 at Police Station Thariri Muhabat are that on 13-3-2004 he was going towards new village on his own motorcycle and it was about 1-30 p.m when he reached near village Jalal Jatoi where he saw three culprits who signaled him to stop there. It is further alleged that as soon as complainant stopped his motorcycle, all the three culprits took out their weapons and asked the complainant to hand over his motorcycle. At that time, complainant allegedly identified them to be accused Nadeem, applicant/accused Zahid and Mashooque out of whom co-accused Nadeem was having K.K and applicant Zahid and co-accused Mashooq were having mousers in their hands. The applicant Zahid allegedly took out Rs, 25,000 forcibly from the pocket of complainant on show of weapon whereas co-accused Nadeem and applicant Zahid snatched the motorcycle from complainant and whisked away from the place of incident.
3. ' After registration of F.I.R. The investigation followed and in due course the applicant/accused Zahid was arrested on 3-3-2006 and sent up to face the trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar where the bail plea moved on behalf of the applicant was declined vide dated 20-5-2008.
4. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant, due to enmity and mala fide intention. He further submitted that there is inordinate delay of four months in lodging of the F.I.R which has not been plausibly explained whereas the offence took place on 13-3-2004 and reported on 19-7-2004 while the place of incident is at the distance of only 2/3 kms away from P.S. He also submitted that accused was arrested on 3-3-2006 and since then he is in jail but yet no progress in the trial has been made. Besides, he also pointed out that no recovery has been effected from the applicant/accused. Finally, he argued that it is by now a settled proposition of law that the accused cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period.
5. ' Learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the name of applicant is transpired in the F.I.R with specific role.
6. It appears that the allegation of committing robbery of motorcycle against the applicant is not corroborated by the recovery of crime weapon or motorcycle from the possession of the applicant.
7. Besides, the F.I.R. Was lodged with the delay of 4 months for which the prosecution has failed to furnish plausible explanation therefore, in the existing circumstances, apprehension of false implication of applicant/ accused cannot be ruled out. The applicant was arrested on 3-3-2006 and since then he is in jail continuously but reportedly no progress in the trial has been made. In such cases, bail cannot be withheld as a sort of punishment for an indefinite period without trial.
8. ' In the circumstances, bail is granted in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. However, the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of.Bail application and may not influence the mind of trial Court which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to merits of the case.