1992 PLP 2451 (MLD)

Rasool Bux Baloch for Applicants. Abdul Latif Memon, Asstt: A.‑G. for the State. . This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant who is involved in the case registered as Crime No.23/1992 with the Police Station Dadu. under section 392/394, P.P.C. read with section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Briefly the facts alleged in the F.I.R. are that on the date of incident the present applicant who drives a Suzuki Car on hire was engaged by one person whose particulars are given in the F.I.R. for going to the village of Naban Khan Lund at the rate of Rs.150. First the complainant was taken by the said person to Dadu Hospital wherefrom another person was also taken whose particulars are also mentioned in the F.I.R. and then they proceeded onwards. It is also in the F.I.R. that when they reached at a distance of about three kilometres from Dadu then both the said persons caught the complainant by his hair and asked him to stop the car. The complainant has further stated that they were addressing each other by names of Saeed Ahmed and Abdul Wahid and that the person who was named as Saeed Ahmed had a revolver in his hand who gave blow to the complainant with the butt of revolver on his cheek and threw him out of car and ran away taking the car. The incident is alleged to have taken place at 16‑30 hours while the F.I.R. was registered at 17‑15 hours. According to the prosecution the wireless messages were flashed and the present applicants were stopped by Mehar Police at about 18‑30 hours alongwith the said vehicle. Police after usual. investigation put up the challan. A bail application was moved on behalf of the present applicants which was rejected. Hence this bail application. I have heard Mr. Rasool Bux Baloch, the learned counsel for the applicants, he has submitted that in the present case, in the first instance, the provisions. of section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 would not be applicable as it is an un-witnessed incident. He has further submitted that at the most the present applicants can be held liable under section 411, P.P.C. for recovery of revolver as it is yet to be proved if the present applicants had committed the offence of robbery. He has placed reliance on the following cases. (1) Muhammad Nadir v. The State 1991 P Cr. L J 4, (2) Shafqat Mehmood v. The State 1987 P Cr: L J 98 and (3) Mahboob Iqbal v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 2522. Mr. Abdul Latif Memon, Assistant Advocate‑General, Sindh opposes this, bail application. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel and perused the papers. It may be observed that each criminal case has its own distinct features and circumstances. There can hardly be two cases, which can be alike. In the present case within forty‑five minutes of the commission of the alleged offence the F.I.R. has been lodged and the present applicants' names and particulars have been disclosed in the F.I.R. According to the prosecution since the F:I.R. was lodged the messages were flashed on wireless by Dadu Police Station and within 1 hour and 15 minutes of the lodging of the F.I.R., the car was recovered alongwith the present applicants by Mehar Police Station which is hardly at a distance about thirty (30) miles. This piece of evidence of recovery of car from the persons whose names are given in the F.I.R., although the same persons were not known to the complainant but he could gather their names from their talks amongst themselves, is a piece of evidence which connects the present applicants with the commission of the alleged offence. It may also be observed that as mentioned in the F.I.R. and as per prosecution case,‑ even if offence under section 17(3) of the Hudood Ordinance is not committed, yet application of sections 392 and 394, P.P.C. cannot be excluded. In the cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicants, it may be observed that in the first case the bail was granted for the reasons that prosecution version was belied by Medical Certificate and that there was no identification test held. In this case it was not the prosecution version that the complainant had acquired the Knowledge of the names of the accused and that the vehicle was recovered. from the same persons. The facts of the next case of Shafqat Mehmood are' also distinguishable as in this case also the bail was granted for the reasons that there was no allegation of accused or companions being armed with fire‑arms and that no identification parade was held as accused were not named in the F.I.R. Similarly in the 'third case also the bail was granted on similar reasons. In the present case the accused has been named in the F.I.R. and the vehicle has been recovered from the named, accused. A revolver has also been recovered from accused Saeed Ahmed. In these circumstances, I am of the view that at present there is sufficient material on record to connect the present applicants with the commission of the alleged offence and they would not be entitled to grant of bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected. The above observations are tentative in nature and would not affect the material trial. N.H.Q./S‑917/K Bail refused.