2000 PLP 197 (YLR)

The applicant is facing trial in the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, East arising out of F.I.R. No.285 of 1998 under sections 392, 353, 324/34, P.P.C., of P.S. Korangi Industrial Area. The prosecution case is disclosed by complainant Sabir Hussain Shah in brief is that he is driver on D.M.C. Truck. On 25‑10‑1998, he filled up debris in the truck and went to Malir Nadi for deserting the same. At about 7‑30 p.m. he was unloading the truck in Malir Nadi when three armed persons came there and snatched Rs.240 cash, NIC Card and K.M.C., truck from him by show of weapons. The culprits left the spot in truck but the complainant informed mobile police, who chased the truck. The culprits on seeing the police party started encounter with police. The applicant who was sitting in wastage compartment of truck tried to run away but was apprehended at the spot by the police, whereas his companions Mushtaq Magsi and Habib Magsi managed to run away leaving the truck. The police took up investigation and submitted challan against the applicant and others. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that co‑accused Mushtaq Magsi has been granted bail by trial Court and that if the bail is not granted to accused he would not be able to defend his case effectively: The learned counsel has further asserted that accused is a young boy and this story is concocted against him. He has further argued that the case of applicant requires further enquiry and the applicant is entitled for bail. On the other hand Mr. Arshad Lodhi, A.A.‑G. has opposed this bail application on the ground that the applicant was caught red‑handed at the spot while committing the robbery of cash and a truck from the complainant Sabir Hussain. The police reached at the spot and after encounter apprehended the present applicant and recovered one mauser from his possession. The applicant is fully implicated by complainant and the policemen including the Mashirs. The police and complainant had no enmity with the applicant and as such the police had absolutely no mason to implicate him falsely. I have carefully attended the aforesaid arguments advanced before me and have gone through the record. The applicant was caught red‑handed while committing an offence of robbery. He is fully implicated by complainant as well as other witnesses. The complainant and the police had no reason at all to implicate the applicant in false case. The F.I.R., was promptly lodged and his name was specifically mentioned in the F I.R. He had fired at the police and was apprehended after encounter with police. The mauser was recovered from his possession and he is facing a separate trial under section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance. The applicant was subsequently identified by complainant in identification parade. So far as the case of accused Mushtaq is concerned, .his case is distinguishable from. the present applicant. The, said accused was not caught at spot and was not identified by the complainant in identification parade and his name was taken by the present applicant. The Courts cannot be oblivious of the menace of incidence of vehicle‑snatching in the city of Karachi and this is the high time to curb and discourage it, as specially our young generation is deeply involved in such dirty activities. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that there ,are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence charged with and is fully involved' in the case. His case, therefore, does not fall under the ambit li of further enquiry contained under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The bail is, therefore, declined Q.M.H./M.A.K../A‑348/K Bail refused.