MUHAMMAD ISHAQ Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Two bail petitions namely Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1070/B of 1985/BWP. filed by Muhammad Ishaque and Criminal Miscellaneous No.1088/B of 1985/BWP. filed by Muhammad Idrees shall stand disposed of by this single order as both the petitions relate to the same case, F.I.R. No.228 of 1984, dated 30-12-1984, Police Station, Liaquatpur.

2. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged by Muhammad Amin. According to him he was asleep in his house with his family on the night between 29/30-12-1984. At the dead of night, 4 culprits armed with deadly weapons committed decoity in his house and took away some of his belongings. During the occurrence the culprits also resorted to firing. One of the shots hit Arshad P.W., a neighbourer of the complainant. The injury was found to be the result of fire-arm and simple in nature

3. During the investigation 11 persons were arrested including the two petitioners. It is alleged that an iron and two rings made of gold were recovered from Ishaque petitioner on 17-1-1985. Likewise a ring 'Kantas', Tape-recorder and Maghar (ear wearing) were recovered from Idrees petitioner on 11-1-1985. These articles were later identified by Muhammad Amin complainant as his property. The petitioner applied for grant of bail in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan but remained unsuccessful, hence this petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the State and also perused the record.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and that the case had been concocted against them on account of family dispute. It is further contended that both the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. and that the evidence collected during the investigation at most make out a case punishable under section 411, P.P.C. based on the recovery of stolen property alleged to have been effected from them which offence is not covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As against this learned State counsel submits that as for Idrees petitioner, he was identified by one Shahab-ud-Din, Advocate at the time of occurrence, with whom he exchanged firing but luckily he escaped unhurt, therefore, it is urged that he does not deserve the grant of concession of bail. As for Muhammad Ishaque petitioner is concerned, he admittedly was neither identified at the spot nor his identification test was arranged by the prosecution.

6. I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and find that the fact that the petitioner' names do not figure in the F.I.R. despite the fact that one of them was identified by an advocate and that the stolen property recovered from them after more than a fortnight's time do not find mention in F. I. R. , the petitioners deserve the grant of concession of bail as there do not exist reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed the offence of decoity with which they are charged.

7. For all these reasons, both petitions are allowed. Petitioners are directed to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan.

S.A./M-626/L Bail granted.