2019 PLP 1476 (YLR)

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.

This single order will suffice for the disposal of the aforementioned two bail applications initiated out of the same crime number. The applicants Sheeraz son of Mustaqueem and Shahmir son of Mansoor (B.A. No. 1252/2018) as well as applicant Muhammad Muid Iqbal son of Muhammad Iqbal (B.A. No. 1253/2018) are seeking their post arrest bail in a case registered against them at Police Station Sahil, Karachi vide FIR No. 123/2018 under section 395, P.P.C. (2) I have heard the arguments advanced from either side and perused record produced before me. After getting hearing the arguments and scanning the available material in the light of valued submissions made before me, I have gathered the following points: (a) The allegations against the appli-cants are that they along with main accused persons have partici-pated in an offence of dacoity with complainant and his wife at Sea-view under the show of weapons. (b) As per allegations, firstly the main accused persons came at the scene of offence and asked the complainant that they belong to police and enquired about the woman. The complainant introduced her as his wife then they demanded marriage certificate (nikahnama) and then six other persons came there and looted the complainant party. (c) The recovery was not affected from the applicants and the belongings of the complainant were recovered from the main culprits. (d) The wife of the complainant in her statement disclosed that only two persons came at the scene of offence, who talked with her husband while she was sitting in the park at that time. From the statement of the wife of the complainant, it appears that only two persons have taken part in the offence. (e) The applicants are students and as per Hulia Form, the applicants are teenagers and overall, they appear to be at borderline adulthood, as such they deserve a lenient view. (f) It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they were persuaded by the main accused to go to Seaview to enjoy oceanic view and merrymaking. (g) In peculiar circumstances of the case, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants cannot be disregarded. (h) Since nothing was recovered from the applicants and the wife of the complainant has involved only two persons in the alleged incident; therefore, the case against the applicants require further probe. (3) In view of the above observation, I am confident that a case of bail has been made out in favour of the applicants as such they are entitled to post arrest bail in the instant matter. (4) The ultimate outcome of the above discussion is that since the applicant is entitled to bail; therefore, the applicant is admitted to bail subject of furnishing a surety of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only up to the entire satisfaction of the trial Court through my short order dated 09-10-2018 and these are the reasons for the same. (5) Before parting, I would like to further observe that if all or any of the applicants after getting bail will not appear before the trial Court and the trial Court is satisfied that all or any of them are/is absconders then the trial Court is fully authorised to take every action against such applicants and their respective surety/sureties including cancellation of bail without making a reference to this Court. MQ/S-80/Sindh Bail granted.