1. ' The applicant Abdul Karim is facing trial consequent to an F.I.R. Registered as Crime No, 152/88 at Police Station Sadar, District Karachi South on 13-6-1988 under section 17 (1) Harabah (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. According to F.I.R. Which was lodged on the basis of a written application submitted by the complainant Mohammad Naeem Rafique at about 2-30 p.m. Three persons entered in the shop, one of them directed the shopkeepers to stand up and one of them fired at them. They shouted in perplex due to which the culprits tried to escape but one out of them was apprehended and it is stated in the F.I.R. That he disclosed his name to be Abdul Karim i,e, the present applicant. He was taken to police station where the report was lodged and the applicant was sent up to face trial Applicant moved bail application which was declined by the /Ind Additional Sessions Judge, South Karachi on 21-9-1988, hence the present bail application is moved before this Court.
2. ' Mr. Jawaid Haider Kazmi, appearing for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely involved in the case. He further contended that the applicant's description is not given in the F.I.R. He has vehemently argued that there is a delay of about three hours in lodging of report which has not been explained and nothing incriminating has been secured from the applicant. He has further forcefully argued that the applicant had intervened in a quarrel and due to commotion he wanted to leave the place of incident and under suspicion he was apprehended and sent up for trial in this case.
3. ' Mr. A.A. Mohammad Ali, A.A.-G. Has appeared for the State and after consulting the papers he has not resisted the bail application as, according to him, the ingredients of Harabah cannot be imported in the case. He also conceded that nothing incriminating has been secured from the applicant. He has not controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant.
4. ' I have gone through the impugned order of the trial Court declining the bail and I do net find justification in the order. According to section 15 of the Ordinance, Harabah is defined as under:- "When any one or more persons whether equipped with arms or not make show of force for the purpose of taking away the property of another and attack him or cause wrongful restraint to put him in fear of death or hurt such person or persons, are said to commit harabah."
5. ' I do not find any of the ingredients of the offence alleged against the applicant. Firstly, there is no recovery and there is no allegation connecting the applicant for having used or made show of force or advanced any threats. No property was either taken nor is there allegation that any attempt to take away the property was made. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that prima facie it has not been established to make out a case under section 17(1) of the Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979 and I feel inclined to extend the concession of bail. At the outright the plea of the accused cannot be discarded in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
6. The provision of section 17(1) cannot be imported by stretch of arguments.
7. ' Accordingly Criminal Bail Application No, 1046 of 1988 is granted and I direct that the applicant may be released on bail if he furnishes two sureties each in the sum of Rs,25,000 (Rupees twenty- five thousand only) and P.R. In the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. ' It was also pointed out that in the case there are only four witnesses and one Investigating Officer, therefore it is also directed that the trial Court shall try to dispose of the case at the earliest.