ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. By this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. applicant Atta Muhammad son of Muhammad Ayoub has approached this Court for seeking bail in Crime No.89 of 2003, Police Station Sukhan wherein he has been charged for commission of offence under section 395, P.P.C.

2. According to the prosecution story, on 17-8-2003 at 1-00 hours, 14/15 persons, some of them duly armed, entered the Plot No.3/A, North-Western Industrial Zone, Port Qasim, Karachi, owned by Messrs Hamza Vegetable Oil Refinery (Pvt.) Ltd., where due to construction work building material was lying. They forcibly took the complainant and two other labourers sleeping there in a room, tied their hands and feet with cloth and took away 3650 Kgs. iron Saria, 13 bags of cement, one generator, one pump, one torch, tool box, two trolleys, cash Rs.3,800 and one wrist watch by loading it in a truck. Complainant first informed the Head Office of the Company about this incident and thereafter lodged such report at Police Station Sukhan at 1600 hours on 18-8-2003 not naming any individual as accused in the crime.

3. On 7-9-2003, during investigation process, police arrested four persons including present applicant and recovered from their possession 13 bags of cement, cash Rs.7,000 and one donkey cart. Accordingly on 29-9-2003 challan was submitted in the concerned Court showing applicant and three accused in custody and five others as absconding accused.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant has not been named in F.I.R., articles recovered from him and the other accused in custody are of general nature and that till this date no identification test of the applicant has been held by the police. Thus, the case of the applicant needs further inquiry as to his guilt, which entitles him for the benefit of bail.

5. Mr. Sardaruddin Qureshi, learned" counsel for the State, did not dispute that applicant is not a nominated accused in F.I.R. and that after his arrest on 7-9-2003, till this date no identification test has been held to connect him with the commission of this crime.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perused the case record, which confirms the position as argued by Mr. Abdul Naeem Memon that neither the applicant is a nominated accused in the F.I.R. nor, after, his arrest on 7-9-2003 any identification test has been held through the complainant or two other labourers who must have seen him at the time of occurrence. Further the recovery of articles shown from the applicant is in respect of items or general nature for which it is yet to be seen whether the same would connect the applicant with the commission of crime or not.

7. For the foregoing reasons, case of the applicant is one which needs further inquiry. He is, therefore, admitted to bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

8. H.B.T./A-65/K Bail granted.