2013 PLP 891 (YLR)

AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.

Through this order, I intend to dispose of instant bail application filed by applicant. Applicant is booked in Crime No.311 of 2012, under section 395, P.P.C., Police Station Gulistan-e-Johar. Applicant in the first place applied for bail before learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East, who dismissed the same per order dated 14-11-2012. Against the aforesaid order present bail application has been filed. The facts of the prosecution case, in nutshell, are that complainant lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Gulistan-e-Johar, stating therein that on 5-6-2012 at about 1130 hours when he reached on his motorcycle at Kamran Chowrangi after withdrawing cash of Rs.1,95,000 from Standard Chartered Bank, meanwhile one Suzuki Hi-roof white colour hit his motorcycle and he fell down and three boys and one aged person of about 40/45 years de boarded from the said Suzuki Hi-roof and on show of weapons robbed cash of Rs.1,95,000 and mobile phone C-200 and fled away. Thereafter complainant got F.I.R. registered and applicant/accused was arrested. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that nothing was recovered from the possession of applicant/ accused and alleged recovery of mobile phone is foisted upon him. He further submitted that applicant / accused is neither nominated in the F.I.R. nor any specific role has been assigned to him. He further submitted that applicant/accused was arrested in another F.I.R. bearing No.624/2012, under section 353, 324 and 34, P.P.C. due to non-payment of illegal gratification to the police. He further submitted that no identification parade was held and extra-judicial confession is not admissible. Learned counsel finally submitted that applicant / accused is neither hardened, desperate or habitual offender, therefore he prayed that applicant / accused may be admitted to bail. On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. vehemently opposed the grant of bail and argued that there is no enmity in between the complainant and applicant. She further submitted that the robbed mobile phone was recovered from the applicant/accused from his house on his pointation in presence of private witnesses. She further submitted that prima facie applicant appears to be connected with the commission of crime hence he may not be admitted to bail. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. It is settled legal position that at the bail stage deeper appreciation of record cannot be gone into but only it is to be seen as to whether applicant/accused is connected with the commission of offence or not. Applying the above rule to present case the tentative assessment of the material shows that no doubt applicant/accused was neither arrested on the spot nor he was nominated in the F.I.R., but subsequently after an encounter with the police he was arrested in another case bearing F.I.R. No.624/2012, under sections 353, 324, 34, P.P.C. and complainant along with P.W Muhammad Akhtar identified him to be the same culprit who had robbed him. It is apparent from the record that applicant/accused voluntarily led the police party towards his house and from a box kept in the room of his house he produced robbed mobile phone C-200 and such mashirnama of recovery was prepared on the spot in presence of complainant and P.W Muhammad Akhtar. It further appears that admittedly there is no enmity between the complainant and applicant and question of false implication of applicant/accused does not arise. Moreover, the offences of snatching of mobile phones have rapidly grown in the society and people are deprived of their valuables on gun-point, this all has created panic situation in the society and one cannot move freely in the city, hence grant of bail to the applicant/accused at this stage will amount to encourage, while these type of offences are to be strictly discouraged. In view of above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused. Accord-ingly, instant bail application is dismissed along with pending application, if any. However, learned trial Court is directed to examine at least three material witnesses within a period of three months, and after such period applicant/accused shall be at liberty to file fresh bail application before the learned trial Court, who shall dispose it of in accordance with law. MWA/A-12/K Bail refused.