1. DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, J.---The applicant has assailed the impugned bail order dated 10-12-2007 whereby learned trial Court has refused bail to the applicant in a crime registered at Police Station Khanoth under section, 20 Harrabah Hudood The facts of the case are that complainant is driver of an ambulance bearing No,KM-7264 belonging to Hussain Coal Mines Company of Mir Bux Rajar. .When after leaving a patient at Hyderabad he reached at Zemi Bus Stop at 1230 hours, he saw that a coach was coming from opposite side and a corolla car was parked nearby him he stopped the ambulance in order to get the coach passed three persons came out from the car., who were armed with pistol came near him and forcibly got him alighted from the ambulance and forced him to sit in the car. Two other persons took the ambulance drove away and robbed from him one Mobile Phone Rs,2000 cash, his NIC and wrist watch and took him in the car and dropped at Petaro link road with blind folded eyes and hands. He got his eyes and hands opened by the people passerby and narrated the facts to the concerned officials.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case, otherwise the provisions of section 20 of Hudood Ordinance is not attracted as the occurrence have not been seen by any of the eye-witness. The features/description of the face etc, have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. Further no identification parade has been held to identify the applicant. There is no reasonable ground to believe that the applicant has committed the alleged offence but there exists sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused as such the applicant is entitled for grant of bail as provided in subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Learned State counsel opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the incident took place on 31- 3-2007 and the F.I.R. was lodged promptly on the same day, however, the applicant was arrested on 10-4-2007 from jail as he was under trial prisoner in some other case. His identification parade took place on 18-4-2007 wherein he was rightly picked up by the complainant. He, however, conceded that no eye-witness has been cited, therefore, the case does not fall under Haraabah.
4. Further no recovery has been effected from him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned State counsel and gone through the material available in the case file.
6. Since, there is no eye-witness, the provisions of section 20 of the Ordinance are not attracted. The applicant was arrested on 10-4-2007 from the jail and there are possibilities that police may have shown the applicant to the complainant during custody. No explanation has been offered as to why the identification parade was held after 8 days of his arrest. No recovery has been effected from him and/or effected on his pointation. The allegations against the applicant appear to be ill founded, vague and general in nature.
7. In my humble view the case of applicant at this stage is one of further inquiry. He is behind bars since more than one year without trial which amounts to punishment before judgment. The applicant is granted bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.