1. ' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , J.---Through the instant application, the applicants have requested for grant of bail after arrest in F.I.R. No,111 of 2011 registered at Police Station Mirpur Mathelo lodged by complainant Ubeullah stating that while he and his brother Dr. Abdul Razzak were available on the plot, at about 10-00 a.m. Accused Allah Wassayo alias Khalid, Irfan, Sajjad Ali and Zubair Ahmed, came in white colour of Car, Zubair Ahmed was holding pistol whereas Sajjad Ali and Irfan were holding lathis in their hands. Five (5) unknown persons also came on three (3) motorcycles.
2. Accused Allah Wassayo alias Khalid abused the complainant and asked as to why they are not allowing their labours to unload bricks at the disputed plot. Allah Wassayo alias Khalid instigated his other companions not to spare them on which Irfan, Sajjad and five (5) unknown persons caused lathis blows to Dr. Abdul Razzak. The complainant intervened to rescue his brother on which Zubair caused him pistol's back side blow they also snatched mobile phone and cash of Rs,7000 from complainant whereas Allah ' Wassayo alias Khalid snatched Rs,15,000 and Irfan snatched mobile phone from his brother Dr. Abdul Razzak. The complainant raised cries which attracted Piaro Khan, Muhammad Ibrahim and others. On seeing the witnesses accused escaped away issuing threats of killing them. The complainant along with his brother Dr. Abdul Razzak went at Police Station and lodged F.I.R. Both the injured were referred to Hospital, after investigation I.O. Submitted challan. The bail application was moved before the trial court but dismissed vide order dated 8-9-2012.
3. ' Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Sangi learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the case is false, fabricated and due to enmity admitted in F.I.R. By complainant over the plot and civil suit is pending between the parties. He has further contended that no independent witness has seen the incident and as per contents of F.I.R. The prosecution witnesses came after the alleged incident of causing injuries and snatching the cash and mobile phone from complainant and his brother. It is further contended that medical certificate issued in respect of injuries on the person of complainant and his brother has been suspended by the Medical Board constituted at the request of applicants for the reason that the injured were avoiding to appear before the Medical Board. It is also contended that recovery of robbed property was effected from the house of one Abdul Ghafoor allegedly on the pointation of accused Zubair and Irfan, after five (5) days of their arrest as such the recovery is doubtful. On this point learned counsel has relied upon the case reported as Muhammad Yaseen and another v. The State (1993 PCr.LJ 711) and Nazir Ahmed and another v. The State (2012 YLR 1085). Learned counsel for the applicants has further contended that it is impossible that two persons came in car holding lathies in their hands. It is further contended that although the maximum punishment for offence under section 395, P.P.C. Is imprisonment for life and not less than 4 years and it has been held in a case reported as Shehzore and another v. The State (2006 YLR 3167) that lesser punishment should be considered, while deciding the bail plea.
4. ' Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Korai learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the bail application and submitted that the F.I.R. Was lodged promptly nominating all the three (3) accused by name as such there is no question of false implication of the applicants/accused after consultation and thought. Learned counsel has contended that the recovery was effected on the pointation of accused from the house of their maternal uncle. Per learned counsel cash of Rs,3000 and mobile phone were recovered on the pointation of Zubair and Rs,2000 and mobile phone on the pointation of Irfan. It is further contended that in a case reported in 2012 YLR 237 the bail was declined in the similar circumstances. In the instant case the accused are named in the F.I.R.Learned D P.-G. Has adopted the same arguments advanced by the leaned counsel for the complainant.
5. From the perusal of F.I.R. There appears admitted enmity between the parties over the property and the civil suit is pending between them, stay is granted which according to counsel for the applicants is in favour of accused/applicants. The main allegation against the accused is of committing dacoity and snatching cash and mobile phones from the complainant and his brother Dr. Abdul Razzak which property was allegedly recovered after five (5) days of incident and arrest on the pointation of accused persons from the house of their maternal uncle wherefrom it could be got removed easly. In the circumstances such recovery on the pointation of accused after 5 days a their arrest is sufficient to make the case one of further enquiry. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants that medical certificate has been suspended by the Medical Board is not contorverted by the learned counsel for the complainant as such prima facie a case of bail was made out, therefore, bail was granted to the applicants by short order dated 16-11-2012. The above are the reasons for the same.