AJMAL KHAN Versus THE STATE

After his failure to get bail from the learned two Courts below, in the F.I.R. No.427 dated 13-12-2001 of Police Station, Lakki, under section 20 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 411, P.P.C., and now through the present application, accused-petitioner seeks bail from this Court.

2. According to the F.I.R., Habib-ur-Rehman, complainant, after performing his duty as a teacher in Government Primary School, Zaffar Abad, was coming back to his home on 12-12-2001. When at about 14-00 hours, he reached near Gambila river, four person, uuly armed with Kalashnikovs, came out from the nearby jungle and demanded money from him. However, he had no cash with him. At the time, he was armed with a S.B. shotgun, which, the assailants took from him alongwith bandolier having 25 live cartridges, his cycle and one watch forcibly and then decamped from the spot. The complainant stated in the F.I.R. that he knew two of the assailants one as Rabnawaz alias Dabkai son of unknown and the other as Gulzaman son of Gul Zarin. However, he could identify the other-three by face.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State assisted by Mr. Abdul Latif Khan Baloch, Advocate for the complainant and have also perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner seeks his bail mainly on the grounds; that the accused-petitioner is not charged by name in the F.I.R. and no identification parade of the assailants has been carried out; that there is delay of about 20-30 hours in the lodging of the F.I.R. and that the present accused-petitioner has been roped in by co accused Gulzaman in his confessional statement dated 6-6-2000, which is a very weak type of evidence, as such, it is a case of further inquiry and the accused-petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.

5. A perusal of the record shows that there is not, only abnormal delay in the lodging of the F.I.R., but the accused-petitioner has not been charged in the F.I.R. by name. Moreover, neither any identification parade of the accused-petitioner has been conducted, nor any recovery has been made from him and in the circumstances of the case, it is yet to be seen as to whether the confessional statement of the co-accused would be sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused-petitioner as such the case of the accused petitioner is arguable for the purpose of bail.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the I accused-petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail I bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.

S.A.K./J-854/P Bail granted.