ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.--Petitioner, an accused in a case under section 382/392/397, P.P.C. And section 17 of Ordinance VI of 1979 registered at Police station Farooq Abad, District Sheikhupura vide F.I.R:-No.351/1988 dated 19-9-1988, has filed this post-arrest bail petition.
2. Case of the prosecution as set out in the F.I.R. Is that on the night between 18th and 19th of September, 1988 at about 1/2 a.m., four persons namely Sultani son of Fateh, armed with carbine, Asghar son of Sohna armed with .12 bore-gun, Kala son of Akram armed with 7 M.M. Rifle and Jawana son of Rehman armed with .12 bore gun came to the Kashaf Filling Station, situate in the area of Sarkari Khurd, Sargodha Road. Abdul Hafeez, the owner of the Filling Station; Muhammad Shafique Cashier and Abdul Haleem Salesman were present there. The armed persons took away a tape-recorder (National), and cash amounting to Rs.3,973 from the bed of Muhammad Shafique.
They also took out Rs.40 and an identity card from the pocket of Abdul Haleern and while leaving took away a torch lying there. Sultani accused also fired shots in the air. Abdul Hafeez complainant reported the matter to the police whereupon a case under section 382, P.P.C. And section 17 of Ordinance VI of 1979 was registered. It appears that the police subsequently added section 392/397, P.P.C. Petitioner and his co-accused were arrested on 22-9-1988. Rifle 7 M.M. Was allegedly recovered from the petitioner on 27-9-1988. Case against the petitioner and his co-accused was later transferred to Special Court for Speedy Trials which action was challenged in W.P.No.140 of 1989 and the writ petition is still pending in this Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned State counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the allegations in the F.I.R, one of the accused mentioned therein was Kala son of Akram. Learned counsel states that the name of the petitioner is Asghar. He is son of Akram but he is not known as Kala. He has been implicated and arrested in this case after due deliberation on account of party-politics in the village. It is further contended by the learned counsel that no incriminating material has been recovered from the petitioner. We have asked the learned State counsel as also the A.S.I. Present with record whether the prosecution has collected any evidence to show that the petitioner was known as Kala. They quite frankly admit that there is no such evidence on the record nor was any 'Zimni' entered in that behalf. In the circumstances, we are, prima facie, satisfied that reasonable grounds do not exist for believing that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged against him. In any case, case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry. This bail petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura.
SA./A-800/L