1. ' Briefly stated the facts leading to this application are that one Ghulam Abbas son of Ghulam Muhammad lodged his F.I.R. Being Crime No,101/94 at Police Station Napier on 10-10-1994 at 22-35 hours stating therein that he works as a goldsmith in the workshop of one Jaffar Lakhani for the last so many years. There are 14/15 persons who are co-workers in the workshop. On 10-10-1994 at 20- 45 hours he and Hussain son of Ismail left the Workshop situated on first floor along sets of ornaments complete and incomplete to keep the same in the shop situated on the ground floor. At about 9-45 p.m. Came across four boys who appeared to he Muhajirs, young and three of them were wearing Shalwar Kameez and one was wearing pant shirt. Two of the culprits were aged about 20/21 years and two of culprits 28 to 30 years of age. The abovesaid accused were standing in front of first room and near the staircase. They snatched away gold ornaments at the point of pistol and put the same cloth hag and ran away from the scene of offence. The accused were equipped with pistol as such the complainant informed Mr. Saeed about the incident. It is further the case of the complainant that he can identify the culprits and suspected one of the culprits as Naeem who had left the service 8/9 days prior to this incident. After recording the F.I.R. Police started investigation and arrested the accused Abdul Haque, Muhammad Nasir, Muhammad Shafique, Muhammad Shahzad, Abdul Wahid on 6-11-1994. The present applicant/accused was arrested on the same day and the police recovered 300 Tolas of gold as per Mashirnama. This property was concealed in a white plastic Theli, which was hidden in an underground water tank.
2. ' I have heard the arguments of Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Habibur Rasheed, learned counsel for the State, and have also perused the record.
3. ' Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and has pointed out that the accused had the knowledge that it is a property involved in a dacoity as such he has hidden this property under a water tank concealed with plaster.
4. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that though the accused persons were arrested on 6-11-1994 yet their identification parade was held on 17-11-1994, after a lapse of about 11 days.
5. The other contention of the learned counsel is that after the recovery of the golden ornaments, complete and incomplete, no identification parade was held. He has also argued that the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Has not been complied with at the time of recovery though the private persons were available, but still the two police officials were made the Mashirs. As, such, he has relied on 1994 P Cr. L J 734, 1994 FSC 2518 and an unreported ruling of this Court in Bail Application No,873/94. The other point agitated by the learned counsel is that the offence, if at all, falls under section 411, P.P.C. And not under section 412, P.P.C. On which he has relied on 1993 SCMR 1223. He has also relied on 1994 P Cr. L J 471 and 1431. He has further relied upon 1994 P Cr. L J 1773 on the point that when the property was recovered the same was not put up for identification.
6. ' Mr. Habibur Rashid has pointed out that a list of stolen property was given by the complainant on 10-10-1994 through his further statement. On 7-11-1994 Ibrahim, who is son of Jaffer Lakhani who is the owner of the goldsmith shop, was arrested alongwith Naeem, whose name transpired in the F.I.R. While the recovery was effected on 6-11-1994, one day earlier.
7. After hearing the arguments of both the counsel and perusing the record, I am of the view that it is yet to be determined whether the case falls under section 411, P.P.C. Or under section 412, P.P.C.
8. Admittedly, there are two versions as such without touching to the merit, I feel that it is a case of further enquiry and the applicant/accused is entitled for the bail. I admit the applicant to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.