1. ' A case under section 17 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 382, P.P.C. Stands registered against the petitioners and another with Police Station Shahkot, District Sheikhupura, vide F.I.R. Dated 29-6-1988. The petitioners seek bail in the abovesaid case which was registered against them at the instance of one Liaqat Ali with the allegation that on 29-6-1988, at about 7-16 p.m. While he was coming from Faisalabad to his village he was stopped by the petitioner with another near Jilianwala and robbed of his belongings.
2. ' It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not known to the first informant nor were arrested at the spot yet it is contained in the F.I.R. That the names of the petitioners were disclosed to him subsequently. Submits that the first informant has not disclosed the source of his information which indicates that the registration of case is mala fide. Contends that the petitioners are in jail for last 8 months but no evidence so far has been recorded. Contends that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioners, therefore, they are not required any more.
3. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the file. It is contained in the F.I.R. That three unknown persons stopped the motorcycle of the first informant robbed and deprived him of Rs,500 as well as some prize bonds. The complainant! Went on foot to the house of his friend and then he lodged the F.I.R. It is not contained in the F.I.R. That in the way he met any person yet it is contained in the F.I.R. That on an inquiry he found out the names of the two petitioners. This, on the fact of it indicates that either the occurrence did not take place at the time alleged by the complainant or it was got registered with considerable delay otherwise there could not have been any time for the complainant to enquire about the particulars of the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners were not known to the first informant. The recovery of currency notes or prize bonds cannot connect the petitioners with commission of the offence without there being any identification marks.
4. ' In such circumstances, I hold that the case of the petitioners is of further enquiry which entitles them to the concession of bail. Therefore, the petitioners arc allowed bail in the sum of Rs,30,O(X) each with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Shcikhupura.