2008 P Cr (PLP)

KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.

Granted.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20-5-2008, complainant Sheheryar Khan had lodged report on the basis of statement recorded under section 154, Cr.P'.C. wherein he had stated that two young persons on motorcycle had stopped him and one of them on the point of pistol had snatched his mobile phone make Samsung. He raised commotion whereupon the accused fired upon him, but he was luckily saved. Upon hearing report of firing police mobile also reached at the spot and had apprehended one of the robbers on the spot, who had disclosed his name as Suleman, while the name of the accused, who ran away from the spot was disclosed as Nadir by the apprehended accused. One Pistol along with cartridge was recovered from the apprehended accused. However, mobile phone was not recovered from him, as the same was allegedly taken away by the accused who had made his escape good from the place of incident after committing robbery. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention towards the memo. of arrest in which it is mentioned that two persons were grappling amongst themselves and there is no mention of third person. He has further stated that provision under section 103, Cr.P.C. have not been complied with. Mr. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, learned Additional Prosecutor-General has stated that the police party had come upon hearing the report of firing and by that time one accused had already run away on his motorcycle along with the mobile phone. The other accused Suleman was trying to run away, but complainant was grappling with him in order to apprehend him. He has explained that this is how the police has seen two persons i.e. one was complainant and the other was present accused. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General has strongly opposed the bail application. I have repeatedly observed in my orders passed in the cases pertaining to the street crimes that these people for a very petty amount take the lives of innocent persons upon resistance. Such types of accused are to be dealt with iron hands by police as well as by the Court. The present case is one of the wonderful case in which the accused was apprehended on the spot, otherwise in such cases apprehension of accused is very difficult. However, at this stage I will refrain from making any observation regarding the merits of the case because it may prejudice the case of either party at trial. From the facts disclosed above no case for grant of bail is made out, I, therefore, reject this bail application. However, I direct the trial Court to record the evidence of complainant as well as P.W. Head Constable Anwar Sher having Buckle No.1072 within two months of receipt of this order. Thereafter the applicant will be at liberty to repeat the bail application in the trial Court if so advised. Observations made by me above are tentative in nature and the trial Court should not be influenced by it. The trial Court should decide the case on merits on the basis of evidence, which comes on record. Bail Application No.788 of 2008 is disposed of. H.B.T./S-61/K Bail refused.