1. ' SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---This bail application has been filed on behalf of applicants, who have been booked in F.I.R. No,45 of 2011 under sections 8(1) Sindh Public Property Removal Act, 2010 of P.S. Anti-Encroachment, Karachi.
2. ' The case of the prosecution is that on 9-10-2011 Akhtar Hussain Rangejo, Tapedar informed the complainant that Government land situated in Naclass No,162, Deh Gond Pass is going to sell out by some persons namely Sikandar Brohi, Abdul Razzaq, Muhammad Haneef and Ameer Hayat along with their 10112 companions, by making plotting boundary wall. Complainant has given such information to his high officials and on their instructions, .He reached at above land along with staff and Anti-Encroachment Police, where encroachers ran away. Encroachment was demolished. As such, F.I.R. Against the above named persons were lodged.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Qadir Khan, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan learned APG and perused the material available on record.
4. ' Mr. Qadir Khan learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He contended that no private person cited as witness, which is clear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. He also contended that complainant levelled general allegation of land grabbing but has failed to point out land allegedly grabbed by the present applicants. He further urged that complainant lodged this false F.I.R. On the basis of hearsay. Evidence as at the time of raid the applicants were not present on the spot and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicants, which. May connect the applicants with the alleged offence, therefore, the case requires further inquiry. He also contended that there is inordinate delay of 15 days in lodging of F.I.R. Without any plausible explanation, which creates doubt in the prosecution story. He further contended that as per the principle laid down by the apex Court in various cases that minimum punishment of an offence can be considered while granting bail to the accused person, as such the minimum punishment prescribed in the offence is one year, therefore, the offence with which the accused is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He, therefore, prayed that the applicants deserve to be admitted on bail. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the unreported judgments passed by this Court in the cases of MUHAMMAD AMIN and ANOTHER v. THE STATE (Criminal Bail Application No,1240 of 2011) and MUHAMMAD HASAN AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE (Criminal Bail Application No,1307 of 2011).
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, learned Assistant Prosecutor-Gener Sindh has opposed the grant of bail to the applicants on the ground that the trial Court has rejected the bail plea of the applicants and this is first application moved by the applicants in this Court. He, however, concedes that there is inordinate delay in lodging of F.I.R., which creates doubt otherwise applicants are land, grabbers and they are not entitled to be admitted on bail.
6. Admittedly, the offence with which the applicants are charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. There is unexplained delay of 15 days in lodging of F.I.R. The story set up cannot be treated free from doubt and the matter requires further inquiry, whereas minimum punishment provided under section 8(1) of Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 2010 is for one year. Respectfully following the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of SHEHZORE AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE (2006 YLR 3167), 'I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, this bail plea is accepted. The applicants shall be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac Only) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.