2004 PLP 432 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 22nd July, 2003. This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.701‑B of 2003 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 602‑B of 2003 as both these petitions arise from the same F.I.R.

2. Petitioners (Sarfraz Hussain Khera son of Iftikhar Hussain in Criminal Miscellaneous No.701‑B of 2003 and Shehzad Ali son of Shamshad Ali in Criminal Miscellaneous No.602‑B of 2003), seek post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.9 of 2003 dated 17‑1‑2003 offence under sections 392/395/412/346, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Musafar Khana, District Bahawalpur.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Imtiaz Ahmad Lakhvera, Manager, Allied Bank of Pakistan, Adda Musafar Khana Branch, submitted application before police on 17‑1‑2003 that he was present in his bank alongwith staff when at about 12‑15 p.m., four‑persons reached there on two motorcycles and entered the Bank; that two persons were armed with rifles, one was armed with pistol and the other was armed with a Chhuri; that they snatched rifle from Abdul Aziz, Gunman, and also gave him 'Chhuri' blow; that two persons snatched keys from Shehzad Ali, and started collecting cash from cash counter of the Bank; that the aforesaid persons thereatened them with dire consequences, detained them in the strong room and fled away on their motorcycles; that aforesaid persons took Rs.21,80,314 with them from the Bank. On his application, present case, was registered against the petitioners and others. Hence these petitions.

4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Sarfraz Hussain) submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., and no offence under sections 392/412, P.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that nothing was recovered from him and recovery is fake and that petitioner is in judicial lock‑up since 18‑1‑2003 but trial has not commenced so far. He contended that petitioner is a practising lawyer and he is not a previous convict and that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he deserves concession of bail.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner, Shehzad Ali, has argued that he is bank employee and his statement has been recorded as a witness in this case. He has, further argued that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and he did not use his jeep during the occurrence and that recovery shown by prosecution, is doubtful, therefore, he deserves concession of bail.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have opposed this application on the grounds that it was planned bank dacoity; that offence under Ss.395/412, P.P.C. is made out against the petitioners; that Rs.5,00820, motorcycle and Kalashnikov were recovered from Sarfraz Hussain, whereas, Rs.2,50,000 and rifle were recovered from Shehzad Ali and his jeep was also used during occurrence; that present petitioners planned dacoity and brought their co- accused from Balochistan, therefore, they are principal accused in this case, that F.I.R. was logged promptly and that Sarfraz, accused is involved in many criminal cases.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above, the complainant got registered the case about the bank decoity. During occurrence, accused took away Rs.21,80,314 and rifle of the Gunman. As mentioned earlier, during investigation huge amount, Kalashnikovs, motorcycle and jeep were recovered at the instance of accused/petitioners. It is daylight occurrence as it took place at 12‑15 p.m. The complainant is Manager of the Bank and he had no enmity with the accused. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners require deeper appreciation of evidence which is not possible at this stage. Even otherwise, challan has already been submitted in Court. The most important aspect of the case is that Shehzad Ali is also employee of Allied Bank and at the relevant time he was posted in the branch where occurrence took place. According to prosecution case, Rs.2,50,000 were recovered from him and his jeep was also used during occurrence. Sarfraz Hussain petitioner, is a lawyer but during investigation a motorcycle and Rs.5,00,820 were recovered from him. The allegation against him is that he brought his co‑accused on a jeep. Also that they alongwith local co accused (Azhar Khursheed and Shakeel Ahmad) brought their co‑accuses (since absconders) from Balochistan. Their vehicles and weapons were also used during occurrence. In these circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners and applications brought by them are accordingly dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the State submits that challan had been submitted in Court on 3‑2‑2003, therefore, learned trial Court is directed to decide the case within a period of six months till 21‑1‑2004 under intimation to the Deputy Registrar of this Court. H.B.T./S‑795/L Bail applications dismissed.