MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.----Applicant is booked in Crime No,176 of 2010, under section 17(3)
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 lodged at Police Station Shandadpur by complainant Sirajuddin Channa.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R. are that on 7-6-2010 at about 0115 hours when the Truck of the complainant reached opposite Dargah Rajab Fakeer eight persons with open faces intercepted the Truck. Out of them, three persons armed with Kalashnikovs three armed with Pistols, one with 222- Rifle and one with lathi. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that on gun point Rs,10,000 in cash was robbed and in additional to that three mobile phones each valuing Rs,1500 and Rs,500 from the driver was also robbed. It is further stated that eight persons had also taken away the Oil Tanker containing 1500 liters petrol.
3. Learned counsel while arguing the bail application has submitted that no name in the F.I.R has been given nor the description of the accused persons have been stated in the F.I.R. He says that no recovery . whatsoever has been effected from the present applicant nor any identification parade was held. He says that present applicant has no concern whatsoever with the commission of the offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police. Learned counsel says that learned trial Court has failed to consider the material available before it and has disposed of the bail application in a mechanical manner by observing that accused persons have admitted their guilt.
Learned counsel says that an admission before the police is of no consequences and learned trial Court should not have rejected the bail application in view of above.
4. Learned D.P.G. Sindh has not seriously opposed the bail application as there was no material available on record which prima facie connects the present applicant with the commission of the offence.
5. A tentative assessm ent of the record shows that incident took place on 8-6-2010 and F.I.R. was lodged on 9-6-2010, whereas the present applicant was arrested on the same day but he was not shown to the complainant, driver or other persons who were available at the time of robbery.
Additionally no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the applicant. In the circumstances, it is yet to be decided as to whether the present applicant is connected with the commission of the offence or not. The case of the applicant requires further enquiry in terms of provisions of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. In the circumstances, I admit the present applicant to bail, on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees one lac only) and on execution of P.R Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.
7. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court.
8. Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of along with listed application.