1. The applicant is facing trial before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) under section 17(3) of the Enforcement of Hudood Ordnance, 1979. The contention of Mr. K.M. Nadeem, Advocate is that the F.I.R. Is belated by 10 days and there is no ostensible explanation for the same. He has further contended that the name of the applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R. And the revolver in question has been foisted on him, even no identification test has been held although the F.I.R.
2. Shows that the applicant was not known to the complainant but he came to know about the name of the applicant from some other person. Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmed. A.A.-G. For the State has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant in view of the above circumstances.
3. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have also gone through the police papers. Admittedly the incident took place on 3-11-1986 while the F.I.R. Was lodged on 13-11-1986.
4. The F.I.R. Shows that the complainant came to know about the names of some of the accused later on, and under such circumstances it was necessary to hold the identification test of the accused. I, therefore, feel that it is a case which requires further enquiry within the meaning of section 497 (2), Cr.P.C.
5. I, therefore, direct that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.