2009 PLP 159 (MLD)

FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, J.

This Application under section 497, Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Applicants/accused Ajeeb son of Azeem and Saindad alias Porho son of Ali Murad, who are required in Crime No.22 of 2008 Police Station, Bhirya City, District Naushahro Feroze registered for offences under sections 17/2, 17/3 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance and 'sections 324, 353, 337-A(i), P.P.C. Brief facts of the case as narrated in F.I.R. Crime No.22 of 2008 lodged on 27-1-2008 are that Wazeer Ahmed the Complainant on 27-1-2008 was going to his village along with Muhammad Rafiq and Qadir Bux and when they reached near Higher Secondary School Boys at Bhirya Road they saw applicants Ajeeb, Saindad and co-accused Ilyas armed with Pistols while accused Manzoor Ali was armed with gun all resident of village Daud Lakho, Taluka Mehrabpur standing there and the aforementioned accused persons robbed the Complainant of his Mobile Phone, Wrist Watch and Cash Rs.1000 forcibly. On resistance accused Manzoor caused butt injury to the Complainant on his head and when he raised hue and cries, one private Datsun with A.S.-I. Manzoor Hussain Rajper incharge PP Bhirya Road with Staff HC Sikandar Ali Rajper, PC/Sikander Ali Buriro, PC/Sher Muhammad Khaskheli, came there and tried to rescue the Complainant. Thereafter an encounter arose between Police and accused whereby applicant Ajeeb and Saindad were arrested who were carrying Pistols and accused Ilyas and Manzoor absconded away on their Motorcycle; hence F.I.R. was lodged as stated above and Challan has been submitted in this case before trial Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Applicants that due to political rivalry, the accused persons have been arrested. It is further contended by the learned counsel that there is a personal enmity between complainant and the accused persons, therefore, they have been falsely implicated in this concocted F.I.R. Learned counsel. has also drawn attention of this Court that the ingredients of section 17/3 are not attracted in this case as the robbed property does not fulfil the requirements of Nisab and that the accused were arrested from their village and all the paper formalities were prepared at Police Station in Collusion with the Complainant party. In the last, learned counsel has argued that police has not mentioned the number of Mobile Phone and currency recovered from the applicants which creates doubt and stated that case calls further enquiry and they may be enlarged on bail as the applicants are languishing in Jail since their arrest. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the case reported as 2002 MLD 1474. Learned Assistant Advocate-General Sindh appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently opposed this bail application. The case-law referred to above does not support the case of the applicants as it is distinguished from the facts, circumstances and law, particularly in that case no objection was raised by the State but in the case in hand, learned A.A.-G has strongly opposed to the grant of bail. I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, perused the material available on record and I have also gone through the order, dated 5-5-2008 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze, who has refused to grant bail to the applicants/accused and I am of the considered opinion that bail should be rejected in this case.. The menace of Mobile snatching, cash snatching and other robberies committed day by day have to be stopped and this practice has to be reprehended. Consequently, no case for bail is made out, I therefore, dismiss this Bail Application. A.M.R./A-111/K Petition dismissed.