2012 PLP 1314 (YLR)

SALMAN HAMID, J.

Javed Iqbal, son of Ajmari Khan, (applicant) is booked under F.I.R. No.272 of 2011 of Police Station Darakhshan, Karachi for offences, punishable under sections 395 and 34, P.P.C. (F.I.R.).

2. Deducible from the F.I.R. is that the applicant alongwith other accused committed dacoity in the house of Dr. Syed Irfan Yazdani, son of Syed Manzar Yazdani, (Complainant) on 5-8-2011 circa 15-15 hrs. After investigation, applicant was arrested; he was identified by the sister of the complainnat who was present in the house on the date and time of dacoity.

3. Learned counsel argued that the applicant was shown to the witness in advance and therefore, the identification parade was of no evidentiary value. The identification parade was delayed. Recovery of mobile phone from the applicant was made up inasmuch as such was foisted on him. It was also argued that since the police had enmity with the applicant, he was falsely implicated in the case.

4. Learned A.P.-G. opposed and resisted the bail application. It was argued that the question of enmity does not arise inasmuch as the applicant along with other accused committed dacoity in a private house with which the police had no concern and that the identification parade was done strictly in accordance with law where the sister of the complainant who was present at the time of dacoity identified the applicant who was also an eye-witness of such dacoity. Not only this, it was also argued by the learned A.P.-G. that recovery of Nokia phone was also made from the applicant which was snatched away from the complainant's house at the time of dacoity.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.-G. Sister of the complainant has identified the applicant who was also the eye-witness by correctly pointing at him who beside being an eye-witness was also a natural witness and under the given circumstances, her identification cannot be discarded lightly. Moreso, because no enmity or any type of grudge or falsity in implicating the applicant with the crime is associated with her. Identification by sister of the applicant is fortified from the fact that stolen/robbed mobile phone was also recovered from the applicant which only weakens his case and furthers the case of the prosecution. The F.I.R. under section 395 Pakistan Penal Code takes it to prohibitory clause of section 497, Criminal Procedure Code and for such reason as well and for what has been observed above, the chances of bail to applicant have become remote. Since prima facie sufficient material is available against the applicant which connects him to the offences with which he is charged, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail and the same is hereby dismissed. M.W.A./J-4/K Bail rejected.