1. The applicant was booked in Crime No:39 of 1997 registered at Police Station Shahpur Chakar for offences under sections 4361427, P.P.C. At present, the applicant is facing trial before Additional Sessions Judge Shandadpur. The applicant had moved application for bail which was rejected hence the present bail application.
2. According to the prosecution case complainant Muhammad Mithal had lodged the report on 28- 9-1997 stating therein that he owned a Khyber Car No,055/LAH and on that day he had parked his car in his office situated within the boundary wall of telephone exchange when during night time some person set his car on fire. The complainant, when informed by duty operator Ali Nawaz rushed to the place of incident and found that his car was court and one tin near the fuel tank was found. The police after registration of F.I.R. started investigation arrested one Ibrar and another and submitted the charge sheet against them showing the present applicant as absconder. ?The case was tried against Ibrar by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahadpur who after holding the trial acquitted the accused, vide judgment passed on 28-3-1998.
3. The present applicant moved an application for grant of protective bail which was granted by this Court on 26-5-1998 and then the applicant approached the trial, Court who rejected the application and took the applicant in custody.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there is absolutely no evidence connecting the applicant with the commission of the offence and he had absolutely no knowledge about the present case and as soon as he came to know he voluntarily appeared and surrendered before the Court alongwith bail application. He has further submitted that the co-accused Ibrar has been acquitted by the trial Court after recording of the evidence and same evidence will be laid by the prosecution against the applicant and as such the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail. The learned counsel has further argued that there are two witnesses who have implicated in their 164, Cr.P.C. statement but they were not cited as witnesses in the F.I.R. and they are Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Khan. P.W. Ghulam Muhammad was examined in the Court and he did not support his 164, Cr:P.C. statement on account of which notice under section 193. Cr.P.C. was issued against him by the trial Court and as such it is a case of no evidence. Learned counsel finally submitted that only absconcion was the ground on account of which applicant was refused bail and for that he has submitted that the applicant has remained in custody for about two months and thus he has sufficiently punished of his absconcion for the period of about 10 months.
5. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the grant of bail on the ground that there is absolutely no evidence against the applicant and he has no objection if the applicant is released on bail.
6. Considering the above circumstances of the case and no objection by the State counsel, the applicant accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. This Criminal Bail Application No,723 of 1998 stands disposed of alongwith the listed application.