' Karamat Ali alias Kaman petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under section 17 of Ordinance, VI of 1979. According to the learned State counsel, the challan has been submitted under section 20 of the said Ordinance.
2. The prosecution version is that on 19th October 1988 at 8 p.m. The petitioner and his co-accused Ilyas, Mehfooz, Ansar and Ejaz stopped a wagon at Nangal Sandan Road and deprived the complainant of Rs,1,666. They also snatched money from Musharaf Shah driver and Teni P.W.
Thereafter, they robbed a number of passersby. They also snatched Rs,900 from Muhammad Tufail, Rs,4 from Ashraf and Rs,6,115 from Riaz Ahmad. The case was registered on 20-10-1987 on a written complaint made by Muhammad Latif.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Latif complainant, Teni, Musharaf and Tufail P.Ws. Have sworn affidavits exonerating the petitioner and that the petitioner is in jail for the last more than a year and the trial has not even commenced so far, therefore, he is entitled to concession of bail. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Therefore, he is not entitled to any concession.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The occurrence took place on 19-10-1987 at 8 p.m. And the F.I.R. Was lodged on the next day at 4-30 p.m. No reasonable explanation has been offered for this delay. It is true that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. But the fact remains that he was arrested on 15-11-1987 and is in jail for a continuous period exceeding one year but his trial has not even commenced so far. His case is covered by Proviso 3 to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Ferozewala.