The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 151 dated 12.04.2010 u/S. 392 & 411 PPC registered at P.S Saddar Chichawatni
2. Allegedly, on 06.01.2010 at about 7.00 p.m. the brother of complainant alongwith Muhammad Hashim Tariq and Muhammad Farhan was coming to their village from Chichawatni on a motorcycle. They were intercepted by four persons, whose features have been described in the FIR, armed with deadly weapons. The said accused persons pointed out their weapons at them and snatched mobile N-94, cash Rs, 5000/-, five Saudi Riyals, original I.D card etc from brother of complainant and mobile 3110 Nokia and cash Rs, 250/- from Muhammad Hashim Tariq. However, when they did not find anything from the pocket of Farhan Ali they started beating all of them and then pushed them in the crops after fastening them with string of their Shalwars. After a while they also stopped a passerby upon which the complainant abandoned his bicycle and ran away, hence, the FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of more than three months in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant. He has not specified the roles while nominating the accused persons in the FIR. The accused persons have also not been put to the identification test. It is further contended that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner despite of his physical remand for thirteen days. He has been arrested on 12.07.2010 and is no more required for further investigation. It is further contended that mere nomination of the petitioner in the FIR is of no material consequence. Reliance has been placed upon 2010 Cr.L.J 107, 2010 YLR 1486 (Karachi), 2003 P.Cr.L.J 758 and PLJ 1998 Cr.0 (Karachi) 665.
4. On the other hand learned ADPP for the state submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR.
Recovery of Nokia mobile phone has been effected from one of the co-accused persons. The delay has been properly explained in the FIR, as the complainant and the PWs kept on searching the accused persons and upon recovery of a snatched mobile phone from a relative of one of the accused persons, they were traced out who also admitted their guilt before the "Punchayat".
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. The occurrence took place on 06.01.2010 while the matter was reported to police on 12.04.2010 after more than three months and the said delay has not been properly explained by the complainant. It has been alleged in the FIR that the complainant party kept on searching the accused persons at their own and upon recovery of mobile Nokia 1310 from real maternal nephew of the co-accused, instant case was got registered. This explanation is not tenable as the public is not supposed to trace out the culprits at its own. He should have promptly reported the matter to police even against the unknown persons to set the machinery of law into motion and police might have collected some evidence from the place of occurrence. No specific role has been attributed to the petitioner despite of the fact that the complainant had allegedly come to know their names. No identification parade of the accused persons has been conducted. Moreover, none of the robbed articles has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner after his arrest despite of the fact that he remained on physical remand for 13 days. There is no independent evidence against the petitioner. The above facts and circumstances clearly make the case of petitioner as of further inquiry. He has been behind the bars since 12.07.2010 and his further detention is not required at this stage. In this way, instant bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (One lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.