' The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicant/accused is facing trial in Sessions Case No,43 of 2000 before learned Sessions Judge, Thatta, under section 216-A, P.P.C.
Read with section 21(2) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. It arose out of F.I.R. No,15 of 2000 of Police Station Sujawal, District Thatta.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R., lodged by complainant A.S.-I. Haji Muhammad Iftikhar Arain of Police Station Sujawal on 11-2-2000 at about 2,000 hours, are reproduced herein below in extenso:-- ' Today, at about 11-2-2000 as per Roznamcha Entry No,15 at 17-40 hours I along with subordinate staff, HC Hazrat Gul, PC Ghulam Mustafa, PC Gulzar Ali, left for road patrolling in Government vehicle No,SP-5378, with driver HC Muhammad Hassan. During road patrolling when we reached at public park where we received spy information that Umar alias Laili son of Natho by caste Amro, resident of village Rajib Amro, Taluka Sujawal is a Patharidar of cattle. He provides shelter to criminals and criminals of far-flung areas also came to him, whom he provided meals and made arrangement for their stay and also extended help in commission of crime and also arranged for their conveyance. On such information we reached at village Rajib Amro at 19-00 hours near his Otaq where we saw on the light of vehicle that 3 persons seeing Government vehicle fled away in darkness towards eastern side. One person was standing at Otaq, who tried to run but we encircled and arrested him and we enquired about the person who fled away but he could not give satisfactory reply. On enquiry he disclosed his name to be Umar alias Laili son of Natho by caste Amro, resident of village Rajib Amro, Taluka Sujawal. We saw 3 cots inside the Otaq on which beds were lying and smalll pieces of meals, Curry and tea were scattered on mat which was lying on ground and one pitcher of water, one steel glass was also available in Otaq. Accused has committed offence under section 21(2), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979. He was, therefore, arrested. From his personal search nothing was recovered. Such Mashirnama was prepared in presence of HC Hazrat Gul and PC Ghulam Mustafa. Thereafter accused Umar alias Laili Amro was brought at police station and such case is registered on behalf of State.
3. The applicant/accused had applied for bail before the trial Court but it was declined to him by impugned order, dated 16-3-2000.
4. I have heard Mr.Mehboob Ali Jawahery, learned counsel for the applicant/ accused and Mr.Dilawar Hussain, on behalf of A.-G. For the State. The latter states that there is no iota of evidence against the applicant and he conceded to the grant of bail.
5. The perusal of record shows that the allegations made in the F.I.R. Are general in nature. Not a single specific instance has been quoted therein. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused. Section 216-A, P.P.C. Is boilable. Thus, the case necessitates further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. Consequently, the applicant/accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs,100,000 (one hundred thousand only) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. By my short order dated 31-3-2000, applicant/accused was granted bail in the aforesaid sum and above are the detailed reasons for the same.
8. The observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the learned trial Court shall not be influenced thereby in any manner whatsoever and it shall be free to arrive at its own independent conclusion after the evidence is recorded in the matter.
' Disposed of as above.