1. ' The F.I.R. In this case was registered on 10-11-1997. Complainant Muhammad Fayaz stated in the F.I.R. That he was driver of Akhtar Lakhani and on 21-10-1997 he had gone to take children of Mr. Akhtar Lakhani. At 9-00 p.m. He and children were in the car when three persons appeared and threatened the informant at the point of arms. They snatched key of the vehicle and took it away.
2. He informed No,134 and he searched for vehicle but could not get the vehicle and, therefore, he lodged report. According to this report Car No,AAE941 Suzuki Khyber, Green Color, Model 1996, Chassis No,438488, Engine No,A-126211 was snatched. The F.I.R. Was lodged under section 382/34, P.P.C .
3. ' Learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East rejected the bail application mentioned as under:-- "In this case although there is delay in the lodging of the F.I.R., the incident is shown taken place on 21-10-1997 and the report was lodged on 10-11-1997 by the complainant. The accused were found driving the vehicle on 14-11-1997 when they were arrested by the Tip Sultan Police Station in a case under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance, and the vehicle was recovered from the possession of the accused. The delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. Under the present law and order situation prevailing in Karachi where the ordinary citizen does not eagerly approach the police and in fact lunches a personal search from the cost vehicle or waits in patience for the vehicle to be recovered, such delays are not due to any mala fide's on behalf of the complainant, keeping in view that the applicant/accused was found sitting in the vehicle when they were apprehended by the police armed with a loaded pistol in my opinion there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed a non-boilable offence and is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. ' Learned Advocate for applicant has requested for bail on the ground that F.I.R. Is delay and there is no identification parade of applicant after his arrest. It is not known as to whether it was some other person or the applicant who had snatched the car. The only allegation against the applicant is that he was found sitting in the car which was snatched. The offence will fall under section 411, P.P.C. And, therefore, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. ' Mr. Habib Ahmed learned, A.A.-G. Concedes that it is a case of section 411, P.P.C. He also concedes that after the arrest of applicant there was no identification test.
6. The F.I.R. Is delayed by about 20 days. There is no identification parade after arrest of the applicant.
7. The only allegation is that applicant was found sitting in the car which was snatched. The offence alleged against the applicant is likely to fall with under section 411, P.P.C. And the prohibitory clause
(1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is not allowed. I, therefore, grant bail to applicant subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.