1. ORDER MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J. G Applicant Mujtahid Shah has filed this application seeking post- arrest bail, who is required in F.I.R. Crime No.7 of 2010 Police Station, Bagirji registered for an offence under sections 353 & 324, P.P.C., 17/4 H.0 and 13-D Arms Ordinance.
2. Prosecution story is that the case was initiated on an F.I.R. Lodged at the instance of complainant SIP Munawar Ali Soomro on behalf of the State on 10-2-2010 at 1000 hours alleging therein that the present applicant along with his other companions had put the stones on the road and signaled the loaded Truck with rice coming from Baluchistan. On their signal, the truck was stopped. Driver of the Truck Nisar Ahmed alighted from the Truck and above accused tried to rob him but on his resistance, the accused committed his murder by means of making fire shot.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the incident is unseen and that there was delay of 14 hours in lodging of the F.I.R. But the same has not been explained. He has further submitted that identification parade has not been held till date and that the accused persons implicated in this case are blood relations. He has also submitted that the police has implicated the present applicant with mala fide intention as the applicant had enmity with the area police on the dispute over the land. He has also further submitted that the police know all the family members of the applicant i.e. Why they have been named along with their fathers names. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has wrongly observed that there is direct evidence of the commission of the alleged offence by the applicant and bail was wrongly rejected by the learned trial Court.
4. On the other hand the learned APG appearing for the State has opposed the bail. However, he could not explain the delay in lodging of F.I.R. He has argued that Muhammad Shafique is the only eyewitness in the matter but he did not know the names of the accused persons but on the pointation of the police present applicant was named in the F.I.R. However he admitted that no identification parade has been held.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and A.P.-G. Appearing for the State and I have also gone through the material available on record with their assistance, Since the incident is unseen and the only witness Muhammad Shafique who was present at the site did not know the name of the applicant nor he has ever seen the applicant prior to the incident. It is further ' clear from the record that no identification parade has been held till date. In the circumstances I find that this is a fit case for grant of bail calling for further enquiry.
6. Accordingly I allow this application and grant bail to the applicant. He shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of R.200,000 (Rs.Two lac) only and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. Application stands disposed of in the above terms.