1. ABDUL HADI KHOSO, J.---Heard Mr. Ejaz Ahmed Awan, learned counsel for the applicant and Syed Meeral Shah, learned D.P.-G. for the State.
2. The F.I.R. was lodged by complainant Abdul Haque Arain resident of Gharibabad Colony Taluka Kotri, showing that on 20-5-2010 he, his brother Muhammad Aslam, nephew Bashir Ahmed and other family members after taking dinner had slept in the courtyard of the house, on 21-5-2010 at night 4-00 a.m, they heard sound and woke up and saw and identified Basharat Ali son of Nazar Muhammad by caste Ghuman and three unknown persons having articles in their hands and were going outside from the house. He cried as thief and the accused persons ran away. On the cries neighbors were also attracted. They also saw the accused while running. They checked the house hold articles and found Rs,25,000 missing which were lying in the Almirah. The other articles i,e, 3 pieces of Nokia Mobile Phones, One piece of DVD, one piece of Deck having remote and 10 pairs of clothes and cloths including gents and ladies. The complainant lodged the F.I.R. against the accused.
3. On 22-5-2010 the police arrested the present applicant/accused, case has been challenged and is pending in the Court of 1st Judicial Magistrate, Kotri. The bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed by lower Courts, hence this bail application.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused states that delay in lodging the F.I.R. is 17 hours and there is no plausible explanation for such delay and prosecution story is false and fabricated and untrustworthy; no any independent corroborative evidence is against the applicant/accused; complainant and the accused are residing in the same Mohalla since long along with their families.
5. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that accused persons ran away, the people gathered there but no any independent witness has been cited which creates doubts and the case is of further enquiry. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the night time and identification is also very much doubtful as it is alleged that accused were seen while they were running away.
6. Learned D.P.-G. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and states that accused is very much connected with the case, his name is mentioned in the F.I.R. and he was identified by the complainant.
7. I have heard both the learned counsel. There is delay in lodging the F.I.R. without any plausible explanation and no any independent witness has been cited in the F.I.R. No incriminating recovery is shown against the applicant/ accused though both the complainant and applicant are residing in same Mohalla. As per learned counsel for the applicant, they were annoyed with each other on some matters. It appears that the case of applicant/accused is of further enquiry. Hence, he is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.