1. The applicant Fazalur Rehman's seeks bail in Crime No.757/89, registered at Police Station North Nazimabad Karachi, on 19-12-1989 under section 17(3), Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979. His bail application has been dismissed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central) by his order dated 6-12-1990.
2. The facts in brief are that on an application moved by the complainant Mst. Shah Jehan Kamal before S.S.P., District Central Karachi, the F.I.R. Of this case was registered. The incident had taken place on 18-12-1989, whereas the F.I.R. Was registered on 19-12-1989. The complainant stated that she resided with her son Nadeem Kamal. On 18-12-1989 Nadeem Kamal was sent to bring meals while the complainant was alone in the house. At about 12-00 noon while she, was cleaning a table someone gave her blow on her back and said `hands up'. In the first instance she took it to be her own son Nadeem Kamal joking with her, but soon she found that a person had kept a revolver on her head while the other man put a knife on her neck. They asked her about the safe and V.C.R., and on refusal to give the, details, the complainant was beaten by them. One of them wearing a jacket removed nine golden bangles, one pair of ear-rings and thereafter tied the complainant's hands and mouth. Thereafter, a T.V., ear-rings and other ornaments together with cash, Tape- Recorder, were taken away. On the next day she read news in the newspaper that some dacoits were arrested whereafter she went and identified the man wearing the jacket who had robbed her articles. The learned Advocate for the applicant has contended that the police arrested one Khursheed Bacha and Mst. Asma on 30-6-1990 and on the pointation of Khursheed Bacha, the present applicant was arrested on the same day. He has contended that no articles were recovered from the applicant and ever since the date of his arrest of 13-6-1990 the police did not hold any identification test through the complainant. According to him the only evidence against appellant is of the co-accused at whose pointation the applicant was arrested. In such situation, he has contended that the grant of bail would be a matter of right. In support of this contentions he has placed reliance on Muhammad Naeem and others v. The State 1990 P Cr. L J 272. In that case the only material against the accused was the statement of the co-accused and the identification that was not held and the accused were admitted to bail. In this respect he has also placed reliance on Muhammad Nadir v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 4. It is observed that the complainant in that case had not stated in the F.I.R. That he knew the accused prior to the incident and identification test was not held and the case was considered to be of further enquiry and bail granted.
3. He has also contended that there is delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R. And no explanation has been given of the delayed report. In support of his such contention he has placed reliance on Nasir Mehmood Khan v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 159 and Sarfraz v. The State 1981 P Cr. L J 1031.
4. Mr. Vakil Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate for the State has contended that the applicant was arrested on the pointation of the co-accused but nothing was recovered from the possession of the present applicant whereas Mst. Asma one of the accused on arrest was wearing Golden Bangles of the complainant. He has contended that the delay is not material as in such cases the informant does not approach the police but makes enquiries privately. HL has argued that ever since the date of the arrest the applicant has not been put to any identification test. He has opposed the grant of bail.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned Advocates and find that there is unexplained delay of 24 hours in lodging the report. There is not recovery of the robbed property from the present applicant and his identification test since last about 8 months has not been held. His case in my view would, therefore, be of further enquiry and I am inclined to grant him bail. Accordingly the applicant Fazalur Rehman's son of Ghulam Rasool is granted bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) with one surety and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.