1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.-F.I.R. No,185 of 2011 was recorded at Police Station Ghotki on 23-5-2011 for an incident alleged have occurred on 19-2-2011. Complainant stated that he along with his father and cousin was returning from Ghulam Muhammad Sugar Mill with Rs,904,000 and they were going towards their house when on the way they had to slow down due to a speed breaker and meanwhile 7 persons came on 3 motorcycles and stopped car of the complainant party. Seven culprits Ghulam Hussain applicant in Criminal Bail Application No,732 of 2011, Sajjoo application in Criminal Bail Application No,709 of 2011 and Nazir Ahmed and Munir Ahmed applicants in Criminal Bail Application No,632 of 2011 were amongst the seven accused persons, It is stated that Ghulam Hussain and Nazir took money from dash board of car, while accused Manzoor robbed one wallet with Rs,15,000 and a wrist watch whereas accused Sajoo robbed driving license, NIC and Rs,2,500 from Muhammad Bux, and Manzoor also robbed Rs,1,000 from them. Thereafter the culprits fled away.
2. ' Learned counsel submits that there is 3 months delay in lodging of F.I.R. And that delay has gone unexplained. He submits that in F.I.R. It is alleged that two persons took out money from dash board of car. He submits that only one hand could have gone in dash board. He submitted that the delay of 3 months suggests a highly cooked up story. He submits that no witness from the Sugar Mill has been given by the complainant. He submits that the accused are real brothers and cousins and they have been involved, due to tribe disputes. He relied upon the case of Muhammad Yaseen and another v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 711), Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Sangi adopted arguments. Of Mr. Qurban Ali Malano.
3. ' Mr. Shayamalal, learned A.P.G. Submits that driving licence and NIC have been recovered from Ghulam Hussain and from Sajoo one watch, one NIC and one wallet has been recovered. He submits that Ghulam Hussain was arrested on 6-6-2011 and recovery was made on the same day and Sajoo was arrested on 4-6-2011 and recovery was made on the same day. He relied upon case of Kirar v. The State (2004 M LD 659).
4. ' In Muhammad Yaseen' s case (supra) facts in F.I.R. Were that it was alleged that 2 young boys armed with T.T. Pistols entered into his office and robbed him at the strength of those fire-arms.
5. Their names later on came to his knowledge to be Sajid and Yaseen and he alleged in the F.I.R. That he was deprived of cash of Rs,21,600, one wrist watch and one gold ring. The complainant claimed that he chased the accused as soon as they left his office and found 3rd accused also standing out of his office. After F.I.R. Was lodged against two persons, during investigation police recovered Rs,500, NIC and his wrist watch. A Single Judge of this Court while granting bail observed as under:- - "Unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., recovery of only a watch and Rs,1000 (Rs,500 each from two accused out of Rs,21,600) after about 11 days of arrest of the accused from the same place, no recovery of weapons, no recovery of golden ring and the statement of the accused under section 164, Cr . P. C . Coupled with post shocking and sorrowful investigation as pointed out in the aforesaid lines, left no doubt in my mind that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused had committed the offence under section 17(3) of the Ordinance, as alleged against them but there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt."
6. ' The case of Kirar (supra) was relied upon by learned A.G.P. In the case complainant stated that he and his family members including his nephew were in the house when five persons trespassed into the house, tied inmates with cotton towels and robbed the family of some gold ornaments and licensed weapons. Then the F.I.R. Was lodged. A Division Bench of this Court held as under:-- "The perusal of material placed on record shows that name of applicant/accused transpires in the F.I.R. He along with his companions formed an unlawful assembly, duly armed with deadly weapons barged in the house of complainant and committed robbery of valuable articles at gun point. Nothing has been placed on record from which it could be deducted that complainant or any of prosecution witness was/is biased against the applicant/ accused. The recovery of some robbed property was made from the possession of applicant/accused. Merely, co-accused Jaro whose name transpires in the F.I.R. Has been let off by the police during the course of investigation is no ground for grant of bail to applicant/accused as he i,e, Jaro could be joined at any stage of the case, if any incriminating evidence comes on record. The delay. In lodging report has been explained in the F.I.R. Even otherwise the delay in lodging of F.I.R. Is no ground for grant of bail in each and every case. In this context we are fortified by the decision of apex Court in case of Haji Gul Khan v. Gul Daraz Khan and another reported in 1995 SCM R 1765. The case of co-accused Peeral who was granted bail by this Court is distinguishable from the facts and Circumstances of the present case."
7. In the present case evidence against the applicant is recovery of driving licence, NIC and wrist watch from his pocket. But it is difficult to believe that one would keep for 4 months driving licence and CNIC in his pocket which licence and NIC have no value for the noble, Rs,904,000 have not found recovered. It has not been brought in evidence as to how they disposed of the same.
8. Obviously they have not eaten Rs,904,000 in a period of 4 months. All these create doubt and any single benefit of doubt must go in favour of the accused.
9. Consequently these bail applications are allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail subject to their executing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs,300,000 (Rupees Three Lac) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.