2009 PLP 160 (YLR)

SALMAN ANSARI, J.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicants/accused Asti Khan and Saifur Rehman alias Shakoor. Their bail applications were rejected by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi by his order, dated 10-5-2008. Brief facts of the case being that on 8-12-2007 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Shah Latif Town, Karachi, complainant Hazoor Bux, his cousin Akhtiar Ali and friend Munir Ahmed while returning to their house near Dawlance Factory, National Highway were intercepted by a white colour car bearing Registration No.APP-194, from which three bow, alighted appearing to be Baloch having pistols and on gun-point relived(sic) the complainant of Rs.5,7000 in cash and one mobile phone, Nokia 1110 and his N.I.C. Card hence, on 19-12-2007, the F.I.R. was lodged under section 392/34, P.P.C. That on 15-1-2008 during petrol duty A.S.-I. Zulfiqar Ali Shar intercepted a car bearing Registration No.APP-194 and on pointation of the complainant arrested two accused who disclosed their names as Saifur Rehman alias Shakoor and Asti Khan. They were taken into the custody in this case and charged with this offence. That subsequently on 21-1-2008, the mobile phone was recovered allegedly at the pointation of the accused Asti Khan. The learned counsel for the applicants/accused had argued that the applicants/accused have not been described or named in the F.I.R. and it appears to be unbelievable that after more than one month the complainant should have been with the police party at the time applicants/accused were apprehended by the police party and identified by the complainant. The mobile phone would easily have been foisted upon the applicants/accused. Placing reliance upon (Asif v. The State) 2004 PCr.LJ 1422, Wasim Riaz v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ.668, Muhammad Khalid v. The State 2007 PCr.LJ 1947, where in these cases it was taken into consideration that the applicants/accused have not been put to identification parade and that "recovery of two mobile phones from the accused was not corroborated by any independent evidence and the same alone could not justify his punishment and holding of identification test could not be dispensed with. Names of the applicants/accused were not mentioned in the F.I.R., under such circumstances bail was allowed in the cases cited above by the High Court, hence bail application of the applicants/accused may be granted as the same requires further inquiry. Learned State Counsel, has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the number of the vehicle in which robbers had intercepted the complainant's car was given in the F.I.R and the police were able to locate the vehicle which was let out to the accused persons and eventually the accused were apprehended. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants/accused and the case-law cited and the arguments of the learned counsel for the State in this case. The colour and registration number of the car in which accused had intercepted the complainant's car was given in the F.I.R and that appears to have been followed up by the investigation and eventually the names of the accused were disclosed by the Rent-A-Car Dealer and subsequently this vehicle was intercepted and two applicants/accused were identified by the complainant. Non-bailable offence has been made out against the applicants/accused and unless it is put to evidence it cannot be assumed that the involvement of the applicants/accused in this case would require further inquiry. I, therefore, reject the bail application of the applicants/accused as until and unless the evidence of the complainant and the eye-witnesses of the incident is recorded, no case of bail is made out and the bail application is rejected accordingly. Directions are given to the trial Court to record the evidence of the complainant and eye-witnesses, if any, within one month. Order accordingly. H.B.T./A-122/K Bail refused.