2003 PLP 106 (MLD)

This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant/accused Bashir Ahmed who was arrested alongwith one Ejaz Ahmed in Crime No.66 of 2002 under sections 392, 411, 34, P.P.C. registered with the Saddar Police Station. Brief facts according to the First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged by complainant Ghalib Mansoor son of Ch. Abdul Ghafoor are that on 14‑3‑2002 he alongwith his family members was in his bungalow when four persons armed with pistols entered into his house from the rear gate, which was lying open and gathered all the family besides Sibte Farman, Suleman, Farid and tutor Muhammad Tanveer on gun‑point and confined all of them in one room of the bungalow. All these persons were under the watch of one gunman while the other three persons collected the valuables which include 2 Cameras, Golden ornaments, 12 bangles, two Karas, one Ginni, 3 golden chains, 3 earrings male, one female ring. T.V. make Sony, 2 Mobile Phones of Nokia, and one High -roof the said Suzuki Van white colour No.CK‑2357 and a cash amount of Rs.12,000 were taken away in Suzuki Van at about 9‑40 p.m. The description of the four culprits narrated by the complainant was that they were of 30 to 35 years of age, one black beard, dark complexion short height, other fair and fatty, third small and thin one wheatish colour and one was fair coloured and fatty. The complainant in his complaint stated that they did not resist due to fear. The complainant alleged that four unknown decoits ran away after committing decoity in his bungalow. Police after registering of the case started investigation and finally challaned the accused. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the counsel appearing for the State. Mr. Syed Mujahid Hussain, the learned counsel for the Applicant has argued that the applicant was arrested by Sub-Inspector Raja Muhammad Arif of Police Korangi Industrial Area on suspicion and during investigation he has been implicated falsely in the F.I.R., No. 66 of 2002 registered with the Police Station Sadder. He further admits that he has been challenged under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance by Police Station Kirangi Industrial Area. He argued that the applicants has not been named in the F.I.R. and no identification parade was held. He submits that there is no material which could connect the applicant with the alleged offence. He has relied upon the cases reported in 1997 SCMR 412, 2000 PCr.LJ 773 (sic) and 1997 PCr.LJ 330 (sic). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that non-appearance of the name of the applicant in the F.I.R. is immaterial as it is common in the case of robbery and dacoity. He further submits that during interrogation the applicant and another accused namely Ejaz Ahmed had disclosed that they had committed dacoity alongwith two other persons namely Rahim, Sindhi and Sajid Mehmood who are shown absconder in the challan. The recovery has been effected on the pointation of the applicant which include R.V. one V.C.R. two Video Cassette, one tape-recorder, brief-case T.V. Trolley. All these recovered items have been identified by the complainant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Non-mentioning of the name of the applicants in the F.I.R. in dacoity matters is immaterial. It could not be expected that at the time of incident the accused disclose his name or his identity. There is no explanation by the learned counsel for applicant with regard to the recovery which has been effected in the pointation of the applicant. As regards the arguments of the applicant was arrested by the other police station and has been falsely implicated in this case also has no force inasmuch as during the interrogation the applicant has disclosed about the offence in regard to present F.I.R. and the recovery had also been effected in the pointation of the applicant, which recovery articles were mentioned in the F.I.R. and were identified by the complainant. There is no allegation that there was any previous enmity of the applicant either with the police or with the complainant. The case-law cited by the applicant s counsel is distinguishable. In 1998 PSC 477 there was no recovery effected from the accused besides that identification parade was not held. In the other matter reported in 2000 PCr.LJ 773 (sic) also the recovery was not effected from the accused. In the case of 1997 PCr.LJ 330 (sic) the facts were distinguishable. In the instant case there is sufficient material and it is not a case for bail. Even the arguments that public witnesses are material is of no value unless it is shown that the statement of the witness is not confidence-inspiring. In bail matters the Courts do not evaluate the material against the accused in-depth which is the function of the trial Court. In view of the above, I reject the bail application of the applicant which has no merits. N.H.Q /F‑4/K Bail refused.