1. ' This is a case in which the present applicant has been challaned for an offence under section 17(3), Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (Harabah), 1979. The relevant facts are that Incharge of New Godowns of Gul Ahmed Textile Mills, reported on 24-8-1994 that the Night Watchman Muhammad Zaman disclosed to him that during the night some 25-30 persons had entered into godown by scaling the walls. They confined the Chowkidars in the "Generator-room" and by force of weapons i,e, Revolvers, which they were carrying they snatched the keys, opened the door of the godown, brought two trucks there, and they loaded the trucks with cotton bales from the godown and took away the same by force. One of the trucks, stuck into mud at some distance and was captured alongwith stolen property. The present applicant was arrested and he pointed out the second truck which was seized and also on his pointation 35 bales of the stolen cotton, were recovered from Murid Goth. The police has challaned the case against the present applicant and 4 otheRs, The application for bail by the trial Court in respect of the present applicant has been rejected while 4 applicants have been released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised a point that the name of the present applicant does not appear in the F.I.R.
2. And that there is delay of 10 days in holding of identification test. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the present applicant is the owner as well as the driver of the second truck in which the stolen goods were removed and the counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was acting as a carrier, and that he was not a beneficiary and therefore, this was a case for further enquiry. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on cases reported in 1994 PCr.LJ 1773, 1987 M LD 1003 and has tried to convince the Court that where there is delay in holding of identification test bail should be granted. On giving due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel I am not inclined to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the applicant as in this case not only the proof of identification against the applicant is on the record, but there is recovery of the stolen goods on the pointation of the applicant. Besides, contention of the learned counsel that the applicant was a mere carrier cannot be accepted as the manner in which the offence has taken place clearly suggests that it was a Harabah and the applicant was the owner and driver of the truck in which he has removed the stolen goods, during odd hours of night after assailants scaled the wall, broke the lock and confined the witnesses in a room. Under these circumstances, I do not find favour with the plea of the applicant and reject this bail application.