1. Applicant Nadeem Ahmad has moved this application for bail. His previous bail application No.639 of 1990 was dismissed on 25-6-1990. The allegation against the applicant is that on 9-4-1990 at about 2-00 p.m. He trespassed into the quarter of complainant Farid Ahmad in K.B.C.C. Girls Secondary School, Nazimabad, Karachi. The applicant was found packing Tape Recorder and other articles when complainant entered his room. The complainant allegedly caught hold of the applicant who caused him injury over his head. Some witnesses including K:M. Humayun came at the spot and assisted complainant in catching hold of the applicant. Complaint of Farid Ahmed was recorded in the hospital where he was taken.
2. Mr. Ghulam Sabir Niazi, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecution had examined three witnesses namely Farid Ahmed, Syed Humaid Ahmad and K.M. Humayun, and that the remaining evidence consisted of the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. It was further argued that Syed Humaid Ahmed and K.M. Humayun had not supported the prosecution. It was lastly argued that the applicant having been arrested on 9-4-1990 had completed full one year in custody on 9-4-1991 and as such he was entitled to be granted bail under 3rd proviso, below subsection (1) of d ,R s w coon 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Mr. Wakil Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate appearing for the State opposed the application and desired police papers of this case to be called.
4. The police papers were available before this Court when previous bail application No.639/90 was decided. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed true copies of the depositions of P.W. Farid Ahmad, Syed Humaid Ahmad and K.M. Humayun, besides certified copy of the order, dated 4-4- 1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the bail application. These documents give an idea, as to what is the evidence against the applicant and as such calling the police papers at this stage is of no use.
5. Out of the three prosecution witnesses examined so far, K.M. Humayun, claimed to have seen the claimant and the applicant fighting with each other at the road of Nazimabad No.2. He claimed to have learnt that cause of quarrel was parking of Suzuki in front of the house. K.M. Humayun did not state that complainant told him that the applicant had entered into his room and had attempted to commit theft of Fan and Tape Recorder. K.M. Humayun was declared hostile by the prosecution.
6. Even Syed Humaid Ahmad has not claimed to have seen the incident. He claimed to have seen the complainant with injuries on his head in Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. In his deposition, complainant Farid Ahmad did not state if he found the applicant in any room. He claimed to have seen the applicant scaling over the compound wall.
7. Besides this the applicant has a case for bail on delay ground as he has ccpr11ploted statutory period of one year in jail.
8. For the foregoing reasons I grant bail to applicant Nadeem Ahmad for a sum of Rs.40,000 and P.R.
9. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Karachi Central.