WILLAYAT ALI Versus STATE

ORDER

1. This application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicants named above who are involved in Crime No.46/1993 registered at Police Station Rohri under section 14 of Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979 on the complaint of one Saeed Ahmed Ansari lodged on 13-4-1993.

2. Bail application had been moved before the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur who declined the same vide his order, dated 27-10-1993.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that names of the applicants do not appear in the F.I.R. He also submitted that even their features have not been described in the F.I.R. He further contended that the applicants had been arrested after five months of the incident and were identified on 9-9-1993 in an identification test by the witnesses but according to him this identification test is of no value because it is a weak piece of evidence. It is pertinent to note that applicants were arrested on 6-9-1993 and were put to identification test on 9-9-1993 which means that there is delay of three days in identification test of the applicants during which period the applicants remained in police custody and according to the learned counsel for the applicants during those days the applicants had been shown to the witnesses. Further contention of the learned counsel is that there is recovery of one V.C.P. and some ornaments but they have not been put to identification through witnesses. Furthermore, it is contended, they are of common pattern and, therefore, the recovery of the same cannot be said to have established the case against the applicants. According to him, the complainant has not mentioned the number of V.C.P. and he also failed to produce the receipts of the stolen articles before the police.

4. Mr. Fareed Ahmed Dayo, learned counsel for the State submits that recovery of stolen articles has been shown to have taken place after four days of the arrest of the applicants. He also stated that in the F.I.R. four persons are said to have committed the alleged offence while in the charge-sheet submitted B by the police six persons are mentioned as accused. Therefore, he concedes to the prayer of the applicants for bail.

5. In view of the above, I consider it a fit case for further enquiry and consequently, I grant bail to the applicants on their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.25,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

6. N.H.Q./H-377/K Bail granted.