1. ' These two applications by applicants Ishaque Masih and Muhammad Aslam arise out of F.I.R. No, 159/92 of P.S. Darkhshan, Karachi. Both applicants filed separate bail applications before the VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi(S) and the same have been dismissed by two orders dated 7- 12-1992.
2. ' The facts in brief are that on 30-8-1992 while complainant Adnan Zafar Khan and the other inmates of the house were asleep, at 2-15 a.m., two unknown persons entered into their servant quarter where the cook by name Abu Ahmed was sleeping. Both the said unknown persons were armed with a Chhuri and a revolver and forced the cook Abu Ahmed to hand over the keys of the house. The said cook was forced to open the kitchen through which the said culprits entered the bedroom of complainant's sister and at the point of pistol took away jewellery and other articles from her room. A third culprit, was standing outside and after removing the articles all the three fled away. On telephone No,15 the police was informed and within no time on arrival of the police the incident was narrated but it seems that the F.I.R. Was registered on 1-9-1992 at 9-00 p.m.
3. ' Both the applicants were arrested on 13-10-1991 and Abu Ahmed the cook of complainant identified them before the police. From applicant Ishaque 9 golden bangles and from applicant Muhammad Aslam an Olympic Camera taken from the bedroom of complainant sister Mst. Saima were recovered.
4. ' The contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants are that the cook of the house who led the culprits to the bedroom of Mst. Sauna has not been made as an accused, that the F.I.R. Is delayed and no reason for the delay is shown, that the statement of Mst. Saima has not been recorded by the police and lastly that no identification test is held.
5. ' Mr. K.M. Nadeem, learned AA.-G. Has opposed the bail applications and has argued that the police was immediately informed and on their arrival the incident was narrated but F.I.R. Was not registered for which the complainant could not be blamed. It is also contended that the offence would fall under Article 17 and not under section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and mere mention of a wrong section in the F.I.R. Would not entitle the applicants to grant of bail.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel and perused the police papers. The incident took place on 30-8- 1992 at odd hours of which information was given to police on Telephone No,15. There is a delay of about 2 days but in the circumstances of the case such delay is inconsequential. The applicants were arrested and the robbed property has been recovered from both of them. The police papers also revealed that the cook Abu Ahmed identified both the accused and the statement of Mst.
7. Saima under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was also recorded without any delay. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants have not committed an offence punishable under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. There are some defects in the investigation and in particular the lapse on the part of police to hold identification test through P.W. Abu Ahmed and Mst. Saima but that alone would not make the case of the applicants of further enquiry. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants have referred to some judgments but none of those are applicable in the instant case and need not be referred to in this order. Consequently, both these applications are dismissed.