1994 P Cr (PLP)

This application has been filed on behalf of Nabi Bux son of Allah Buy, who is facing trial for offences under section 382, P.P.C. read with section 20, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 being Crime No.88/93 of Police Station Kotdiji District Khairpur. The case is pending against him in the Court of Sessions Judge, Khairpui. An application was moved by the applicant before the Court of Sessions Judge but the same was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 21-10-1993 as such this application has been filed before this Court for the grant of bail to the applicant under section 497, Cr.P.C. The brief facts as mentioned by the complainant in the first information report are that he had purchased one Mehran Suzuki Car No.9004/Karachi from Muhammad Ibrahim of Sukkur on instalment basis and the registration papers of the car were in the name of Muhammad Ibrahim. The complainant according to F.I.R. used to ply this car on hire basis. On the day before filing the report the complainant alongwith the car came on the taxi stand and parked his car there. At about 3-00 p.m. one person came in white clothes to engage his taxi and asked him that he will go near Hussainabad and then proceeded to Hingorja. He started the car and the person who engaged his car on hire sat on the front seat with him. He enquired from him his address but he did not give his name and address and went on talking with him on other topics. When they reached near the village of Shars, the said person asked him to stop the car and accordingly he stopped the car. The said person got out from the car near the Manjhandri trees. He also got down from the car and went to pass urine nearby. He saw two persons came out of Manjhandri trees having pistol and revolver in their hands. The other person was also having revolver in his hand, they met with the person who had hired the taxi and all of them got into the car and after starting the car went away by driving the car to the eastern side and proceeded towards Ranipur through National Highway with high speed. He also followed the car by running up to Nationa Highway, at that time one Ghulam Akbar Bugti and Ali Dino Bugti happened to pass in a car, coming from Khairpur. On seeing him they stopped the ca and he narrated them the entire incident. All of them went to search the ca but could not find the same. He narrated the facts to his brother Mazar Khan also. Ghulam Mustafa advised him to lodge the report with the police. Hi proceeded to the police station and lodged the first information report of this crime. It is the case of prosecution that on 14-7-1993 Muhammad Hanif and Ali Gohar were arrested by the police alongwith the robbed car. Both the accused were put to identification test on the same date and the complainant picked out correctly both of them to be the culprits who had taken away his car. On the same day both the accused were produced before the Mukhtarkar and F.C.M. Kotdiji and gave judicial confessions before him which were recorded. They also implicated the present applicant Nabi Bux. On 17-7-1993 the present applicant Nabi Bux was arrested and a revolver was recovered from his possession. He was put to identification test on 18-7-1993 and was correctly picked out by the complainant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has contended that the case against the applicant is based mainly on identification test and his involvement by the co-accused in their retracted judicial confessions. He has further contended that robbed car was not recovered from his possession, and has been falsely involved in this case by the police. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the incident had taken place at about 4-00 p.m. and that the complainant had enough opportunity of seeing the faces of all the accused clearly as the incident has taken place during day time. He has further contended that robbed car was recovered from the possession of the co-accused Muhammad Hanif and Ali Gohar who have given judicial confessions on the same day before the First Class Magistrate. The present applicant Nabi Bux has been fully implicated by co-accused in their confessions. The complainant had correctly picked out the present applicant Nabi Bux in the identification test held on 18-7-1993. He has further contended that the complainant had no reason to falsely implicate the present applicant in this case as no enmity has even been alleged by the applicant with the complainant. In view of these facts, according to him the offence with which the accused have been charged is punishable up to 10 years or more as such according to him the case of the present applicant comes within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In view of the above evidence, has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the accused. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the State. I have also gone through the first information report and other investigation papers of this case. I have also perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. It appears from the evidence so far collected by the police against the present applicant that the present applicant and other accused had planned to hire a taxi with intention of to commit robbery of the car, as is clear from judicial confession given by co-accused. The present applicant has been picked up in the identification test and has been implicated by both the co-accused in their judicial confession. The complainant had enough opportunity to see the faces of the applicant/accused clearly as the incident had taken place during day time. Nothing has been brought on record to show at this stage that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this crime. The cases of snatching of cars iii this manner have become very common and on the basis of evidence, that has been collected so far, I feel that the applicant has been fully implicated in the commission of the crime, as such no case has been made out by the applicant for being released on bail. I had accordingly by a short order dismissed this bail application on 23-1-1994 and f these are the reasons for the same. N.H.Q./N-511/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused