2008 PLP 914 (YLR)

DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, J.

Applicant has assailed the impugned bail order passed by the Sessions Judge Karachi East who has refused the bail to the applicant on the ground that 'the contents of the F.I.R. indicates that the incident took place on 26-9-2007 when the applicant along with absconding accused engaged taxi of the complainant and during the course of journey the taxi driver was deprived of Rs.1,500 by showing of Khanjar and after depriving the complainant of the amount of Rs.1,500 the co-accused decamped from the site while the present applicant was apprehended on the spot. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated with mala fide intentions. He further submits that nothing was recovered from his possession though he, was arrested at the spot and the allegations against him are general, ill founded and vague. No private witnesses, though present at the time of his arrest on the spot and no explanation has been offered by the prosecution for violating mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. The amount, if robbed, is in fact attributed to the absconding accused and allegation of show of Khanjar is also alleged to the absconding accused. He further submits that the challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court and for the last four months even charge has not been framed. He relied upon the cases of Muhammad Asif Mumtaz v. The State reported in 1999 PCr.LJ 283 and Asif Raza v. The State reported in 2006 PCr.LJ 1628. He submits that there are no reasonable grounds exciting to believe that the applicant has committed the alleged offence and his case falls under subsection 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C. as of further inquiry. Mr. Abdul Jabbar Lakho, learned A.A.G. for the State, opposed the grant of bail on the ground that it is a fresh case and the F.I.R. was promptly lodged. No enmity is alleged with the complainant and there are chances of repetition of crime if he has been released on bail. He further submits that the delay in trial, if any, is not because of prosecution but because of absconding accused and unless legal formalities have been complied with the charge cannot be framed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the material available on record and so also the case law. In the case of Asif Raza (supra) this Court has held that in case the investigation is completed, challan has been submitted and no recovery is effected from the accused, who has been arrested from the spot, the case of the applicant becomes a case of further inquiry and this Court granted bail. In case of Muhammad Asif Mumtaz (supra) this Court has held that a case of robbery was committed in main bazaar at the evening time but no independent witness of locality has been cited as Mashir and no explanation for non-compliance with provisions of section 103 Cr.P.C. was furnished by the prosecution. In absence of recovery of any weapon or any other connecting material from the applicant, the case of the applicant becomes a case of further inquiry. I am persuaded by view taken in both the cases and held that the case of the present applicant is a case of further inquiry and the applicant is entitled for the grant of bail. In view of the above, the applicant is granted bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court H.B.T./S-1/K Bail granted.