' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---The applicant has applied post-arrest bail in Crime No,34 of 2011, lodged at Police Station, Faiz Ganj, under sections 392 and 215, P.P.C.
2. The bail application was moved in the trial court, but it was dismissed vide order dated 11-11-2011.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24-4-2011, complainant Akhtar Javed lodged the F.I.R. That he owns Alto Car. On 26-10-2010, he along with his driver Ali Khan went to drop his cousin Gul Bag Chang towards Pacca Chang from Karoondi by car, when they reached at Hashimabad watercourse, they saw four persons in the light of car, emerging on the road from sugarcane crop, out of them one was armed with Kalashnikov, one was with rifle and two persons were armed with guns. The accused persons on the show of weapons got the car of the complainant stopped and pushed the complainant from the car, snatched the key from driver Ali Khan and also robbed mobile and cash amount of Rs,5,000 from complainant and mobile phone and cash amount from witness Gul Baig. Thereafter, all accused persons boarded in car and went away towards Pacca Chang. The complainant came to, know that Waqar Ali and Asif Ali Rajper along with their accomplices committed the robbery. The complainant along-with P.Ws. Gul Baig and Ghulam Hussain Mashori approached accused Wagar alias Vicky and Asif Ali who demanded bhung/ransom amount of Rs,85,000 for return of car and other robbed articles, on which complainant party asked them to come at Shahid petrol pump where they will pay the bhung amount to them. On 20-1-2011, Wagar (applicant) and Asif came at Shahid petrol pump where complainant paid bhung/ransom amount to applicant Wagar Ali in presence of Ghulam Hussain Mashori, who delivered the same amount to accused Asif Ali promised to return the car and robbed amount but ultimately they failed to return the robbed car and other articles to the complainant.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of about six months in lodging the F.I.R. He further argued that no statement of any prosecution witnesses was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Neither the complainant nor the prosecution witnesses identified the applicant nor is it mentioned in the F.I.R. Even it is not mentioned in the F.I.R.
From which source the complainant came to know that the applicant is involved in the crime. The learned counsel argued that the co-accused Atta Hussain was granted bail and during course of investigation accused Asif was declared innocent and the final challan was submitted which was accepted by the learned Magistrate. It was further averred that no independent witness was associated from the locality.
5. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General opposed the bail application and argued that the applicant is involved in a robbery case and his name is also mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, he is not entitled to be the released on bail. It was further argued that specific allegation has been leveled against the present applicant that bhung/ransom amount was paid to him by the complainant and since after collecting bhung amount, the applicant failed to return the robbed vehicle, therefore, the complainant lodged the F.I.R. With some delay.
6. I have seen the bail order dated 21-5-2011 in which co-accused Atta Hussain was granted bail and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, observed in the order that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay of six months in lodging the F.I.R. The name and description of Atta Hussain did not find place in the F.I.R. The statements of prosecution witnesses were also not recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. And no identification parade was arranged by the police party before the Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, granted bail to Atta Hussain and observed that at the time of incident applicant Atta Hussain was admitted in the hospital. I have seen the another bail order dated 11-11-2011 passed by the same learned Additional Session Judge, in the case of present applicant, whereby the bail application was dismissed and the learned Judge observed that there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. As incident took place on 26-10-2010 and on the same day complainant reported the matter at Police Station Faiz Ganj and the entry was kept in daily diary at S.No,11 by SIP Shoukat Ali.
7. In the first part of F.I.R., no name of any accused person is mentioned but in the later part the complainant stated that from some sources he came to know that accused Waqar Ali and Asif Ali Rajper with their two companions committed the robbery and he approached them and paid Rs,85,000 for return of car and other robbed articles which shows without any shadow of doubt that the role of Waqar Ali and Asif Ali was same and according to the prosecution case both received the ransom amount from the complainant.
8. I have seen the final challan in which accused Asif Ali was declared innocent during the investigation who was assigned the same role in the F.I.R. Which attributed to the present applicant.
It is also a fact that there is delay of at least six months in lodging the F.I.R. And the complainant failed to disclose his source of information as how he came to know that the present applicant was involved in the crime. The incident allegedly took place on 26-10-2010 'and the F.I.R. Was lodged on 24-4-2011. The complainant failed to point out any compelling circumstances under which he was prevented pr precluded from lodging the F.I.R. Promptly except one reason that he was himself trying to make out a deal with the applicant and paid 85,000 as ransom amount and on the refusal of applicant to return the robbed car, he approached to the police for lodging the F.I.R. So far as the alleged entry of incident in the Police Station is concerned, the police himself mentioned that there was no delay on the part of the police. If the police was not registering the F.I.R. Of the complainant immediately, recourse was opened to him to approach Justice of Peace and avail the remedy provided under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. It is also an admitted fact, no identification parade was conducted. Under section 154, Cr.P.C. It is the responsibility of the police to record the statement of a person immediately in case, any cognizable offence is reported but at the same time it is also responsibility of every person/citizen to immediately lodge the report to the police to set law into motion and not to wait six months for making attempts to settle the dispute personally with the accused/offenders which precisely happened in this case.
9 . After hearing arguments of the learned counsel and examining the available record, I have reached -to a conclusion that at present, the case of applicant falls within the phrase of further inquiry. Consequently the applicant is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees Two. Lac Only) with P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The above findings are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of the prosecution.