2018 PLP 146 (YLRN)

KHADIM HUSSAIN M.SHAIKH, J.

Through this application, applicant Zafar Ali has sought his release on bail in case culminated from FIR No.523/2016 for offence under section 395, P.P.C. of Police Station Shahrah-e-Faisal, after his bail plea has been declined by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, by dismissing his bail application bearing No.1404 of 2016 vide order dated 09.09.2016.

2. Briefly the facts of the case narrated in the subject FIR, lodged by complainant Sohail Ahmed, are that on 01.08.2016, while he was on his way to office, at about 0200 hours (2:00 a.m.) when he reached at Service Road near FBR Office in a street of Katchra Kundi Block-15, Gulistan-e-Johar, he found six boys came on motorcycles and snatched his wallet, containing cash of Rs.10,000/- and mobile phone Samsung Grand Prima on gun point and seeing the police party, on patrolling, coming, the culprits tried to escape, but after chasing them, the police apprehended three of the culprits, who disclosed their names as Naseebullah alias Sami, Zafar Ali and Nisar Ahmed and the names of their three other escaped accomplices as Rizwan Ali, Jahangir and Aslam Jogi. On personal search of the apprehended accused, three unlicensed 30-bore pistols with live bullets and six mobile phones, were recovered from their possession and then the apprehended accused and case property were brought at Police Station Shahrah-e-Faisal where the above FIR was lodged.

3. The learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case; that no independent person has been shown as witness in the FIR; and, that the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He, therefore, prays that the applicant may be granted bail. He has placed his reliance on the cases of Saadi Ahmad v. The State (2011 YLR 689), Mumtaz Ali v. The State (2016 PCr.LJ Note 19) and Syed Arshad Ali Shah Bukhari v. The State and others (2011 SCMR 1644)

4. Conversely, learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant contending that the applicant is involved in various cases of heinous offences; that the applicant was apprehended along with his two accomplices immediately after the incident; that six mobile phones and unlicensed crime weapons with live bullets were recovered from their possession; that no enmity of the complainant against the applicant is alleged; and, that the offence with which the applicant is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, prays that the bail application may be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh for the State and have also gone through the material available on record with the assistance of learned A.P.G. 6 Record reflects that the name of the applicant does find place in the FIR; the applicant and his five accomplices duly armed with weapons riding on two motorcycles allegedly snatched away wallet containing cash amount of Rs.10,000/- and a mobile phone from complainant Sohail Ahmed on show of weapons: a police party. on patrolling headed by Nasir Mehmood, luckily arrived at the place of incident, on the pointation of the complainant, on hot pursuits apprehended three of the culprits including the applicant shortly after the incident, recovering six mobile phones of different companies and three unlicensed crime weapons with ammunition from their possession; the prosecution witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. have implicated the applicant; no enmity of the applicant with the complainant is shown; and, thus there is a prima-facie sufficient material against the applicant to connect him with the offence alleged against him, falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., which dis-entitles him to grant of bail.

7. The cases relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant being distinguished on facts and circumstances, are not applicable to the case one in hand as in case of Saadi Ahmad (supra), the FIR was lodged with delay of two months without any explanation, in which the petitioner was not nominated, in the case of Mumtaz Ali (supra), name of the applicant was not mentioned in the FIR and the fact as to animosity of the accused with the police had been established through documents, and in case of Syed Arshad Ali Shah Bukhari (supra), four out of the eight accused persons nominated in the FIR had been declared by the investi-gating agency to be innocent although it was a case of encounter between the accused and the complainant and police party, and, none from the complainant/ police party had received even a scratch on his body, and thus none of the cited cases is helpful for the applicant.

8. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the applicant has failed to make out his case for grant of bail and his bail application is liable to be dismissed.

9. Above are the reasons of short order announced by me on 03.11.2016, whereby the bail application was dismissed.

10. It needs no reiteration that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding bail application, and the same shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the case. WA/Z-5/Sindh Bail refused.