1990 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.307, 333 & 353/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Dacoity was committed by 15 persons armed with Klashnikoves, rifles and revolvers‑‑‑One Constable was injured and a service rifle of another constable was taken away by the culprits‑‑‑F.I.R. was lodged just after 35 minutes of the incident‑‑‑Witnesses had implicated the accused in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence being the concern of Trial Court at the time of trial, the Court would require only prima facie opinion at the bail stage‑‑ Bail application having no merits was dismissed. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada for Applicant. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. for the State. Applicant Muhammad Mithal who is detained in Crime No.128 of 1988, Police Station Bin Oasim under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, 307, 333 and 353/1‑19, P.P.C. applied for bail before IInd Additional Sessions Judge (East) Karachi, but without success. He has now approached this Court with the same prayer.

2. It is a case of dacoity alleged, to have been committed by 15 persons armed with Klashnikoves, rifles and revolvers in which there was an exchange of firing and as a result thereof Maqsood Ahmed, P.C. was injured. The culprits, A however, decamped with the service rifle belonging to Muhammad Rafiq P.C. The report of this incident was lodged at Bin Oasim Police Station on 26‑8‑1988 at 4‑30 a.m. after 35 minutes of the incident. 3. 1 have heard Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned A.A.‑G. for State. The latter has opposed the bail application.

4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that there is no evidence worth consideration connecting him with this crime and he has been roped in this case only on account of suspicion. The learned A.A.‑G. while conceding that there was no identification test in respect of the present applicant, has submitted that P.Ws. Muhammad Rafiq P.C. Bashir Ahmed, Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Ali, Raziul Haq and Maqsood Ahmed P.C. have implicated the present applicant in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The contention of learned counsel for applicant that there exists no evidence on record connecting the B applicant with this crime is, therefore, devoid of any force. The extent to which the witnesses should be believed, is primarily the concern of the trial Court when the case proceeds before it. At this stage, it is only a prima facie opinion that is required, and the Court should not go into the details.

5. It is a case of very daring dacoity. There is an alarming increase of such cases. In the circumstances of the present case; I see no merit in this bail application, which is accordingly dismissed. SA./M‑986/K Bail refused.