' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this application, applicant Asad Ali seeks post arrest Bail in Crime No,208 of 2012 of Police Station, Qasimabad for offence punishable under section 20 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood ) Ordinance, 1979.
2. Succinctly facts of prosecution case are that on 19-9-2012, complainant Saeed Ahmed Kehar along with his partner Sajjad Ali encashed Rs,1500,000 from the U.B.L Bank Qasimabad and boarded in the car and when they reached at main entry of Qasimabad Bazar at 1530 hours, three unknown persons robbed the aforesaid cash amount from them and went away on their motorcycle.
3. It is the next episode of prosecution case that subsequently on 13-10-2012 complainant recorded his further statement in which he implicated co-accused Gufran Shah as well as the present applicant on the allegation of instigation to co-accused to commit the offence, therefore, applicant was arrested. After completion of investigation case has been challaned and now is pending trial before the learned trial court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that neither name of the applicant transpires in the F.I.R. Nor there is any specific role assigned to him; there is delay of seven days in lodging the F.I.R.
Which has not been plausibly explained by the complainant; further statement of complainant was recorded on 13-10-2012 in which the complainant implicated the applicant. He further states that after arrest of the applicant, no identification parade was held before the Magistrate. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Gufran Shah has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 31-12-2012. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the case of Muhammad Afzal alias Bodi v. The State (1979 SCM R 9), Muhammad Naseem alias Naseemo v. The State (1996 PCr.LJ 1302), Farman Ali v. The State (1997 SCM R 971) and Khalid v. The State (2008 M LD 1024).
5. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that on the pointation of present applicant incident was taken place, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears that the F.I.R. Has been lodged with delay of 7 days which has not been plausibly explained by the complainant. The complainant has involved the applicant in his further statement recorded with delay of about 24 days of the incident, in which he has stated that on the pointation of the present applicant, co- accused Gufran Shah robbed the complainant. After arrest of the applicant, he was not produced before any Magistrate and was shown arrested after filing of application under section 491 Cr.P.C.
By father of the applicant. In view of the above circumstances, the case of the applicant requires further inquiry in terms of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The co-accused Gufran Shah has been granted bail, by this court and the case of the applicant is on better footing to the case of co-accused, who has been granted bail.
7. In case of Muhammad Fazal alias Bodi, it has been held by the honoruable Supreme Court that petitioner should be released on bail on the principle of requirement of consistency in the same case and for the similar reason that the co-accused to whom a role similar to that of the petitioner was attributed had been so released on bail.
8. In view of the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the applicant has succeeded to make out his case for grant of bail. Accordingly, applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (One hundred thousands) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
9. Needless to say that the observation made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the time of trial.