2004 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Sharif v. State and others 1999 MLD 692; Amjad Hussain v. State 1999 MLD 438 and Muhammad Asif Mumtaz v. State 1.999 PCr‑.LJ 283 ref. Zafar Warraich for Applicant Mrs. Shamim Hashmi for the State Date of Bearing: 25th August, 2003 Accused is facing trial for an offence under section 392/34 P.P.C. of Police Station Nazimabad. On 2‑6‑2003, the report was lodged on the basis of statement of Dr. Hassan recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. wherein it is stated that the complainant is Managing Director of Tuba Hospital, Kausar.Niazi Colony, Block "H" North Nazimabad Karachi. He was present in his house situated at Gulshan‑e‑Iqbal, Karachi where he received telephonic message from the owner of hospital that dacoity has taken place in the hospital and one of the culprit was apprehended on the spot. On this information complainant reached at hospital where he was apprised that at 3‑00 p.m three bandits entered hospital and by show of weapons committed robbery and thereby removed Rs.5,476 from the drawer. After the commission of robbery, the culprits tried‑to run away but the people of vicinity apprehended the present applicant who disclosed his name as Muhammad Imran. Two of 'his companions fled from the scene. The accused was taken to Police Post Hyderi, where statement of Dr. Hassan was recorded which was subsequently entered in 154, Cr.P.C. Book at‑police station. The accused was sent up to stand trial. It is contended by the learned counsel that nothing incriminating has been recovered from him. He states that lie had gone to that Mohalla with his personal work and later on this Drama was prepared by the complainant and Mohalla people and captured him. He has been falsely implicated. Reliance has been placed upon the cases Muhammad Sharif v. State and others 1999 MLD 692., Amjad Hussain v. State 1999 MLD 438 and Muhammad Asif Mumtaz v.. State 1999 PCr.LJ

283. Mrs. Shamim Hashmi, learned counsel appearing for the State, has opposed the bail plea of applicant. The record shows that the name of applicant figures in the F.I.R. which was promptly lodged. He was apprehended at the spot by the Mohallah people. It is day time incident. No enmity has been alleged against the ‑complainant or other witnesses. The offence of dacoity/ robbery is covered by prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. This is fresh case and no prosecution witness has been examined. Sufficient ocular evidence is available on record to prima facie show the involvement of applicant in the commission of crime or robbery. Case of applicant does not come under the scope of further enquiry. Bail is declined N.H.Q./M‑574/K Bail refused.