2006 PLP 1835 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.

By this order I intent to dispose of Criminal Bail Application filed on behalf of applicant Abdul Khalid son of Abdul Haq, in a case bearing Crime No.607/04, registered at Police Station Korangi, for an offence under section 395/34, P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East. The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on the eventful day i.e. 23-11-2004, complainant Muhammad Ismail appeared at Police Station Korangi and lodged F.I.R. bearing No.67 of 2004. The case against the applicant is that on 23-11-2004 he was arrested along with Madani Ahmed, Mehtab Ali, Rizwan alias Ludoo and Irfan Choudhery and during investigation it was disclosed that on 18-11-2003 in the month of Ramzan on 22nd Ramzan at the time of Aftari at Korangi No.3 Area 0, applicant along with four other persons has committed dacoity on gun-point at the shop of mobile phone, and from the shop taken away the mobile phone Nokia, Ericson, cash amount, watch, repeater-12 bore of Security guard. On identification A.S.-I. Muhammad Arif along with other officials reached on the above address and pointed out Shop No.33 and admitted their crime. A.S.-I. recorded the statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. of the complainant Ismail Ali who was also present in the shop. The complainant also resides in the same area and having his own business of mobile phones. Complainant was informed about the dacoity by his servant Asif on mobile phone. On.22-11-2004 when complainant was present in the shop five accused named above brought in police custody. They pointed out complainant's shop and admitted that on 18-11-2003 they committed dacoity. The Police also recorded the statement of complainant. The investigation followed in due course applicant was sent back to stand trial in the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge Karachi East. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case against his client is false who has been involved in the background of enmity and under suspicion. It has also been contended that the incident took place on 18-11-2003 and F.I.R. was registered on 23-11-2004, after the delay of more than one year and five days without any explanation. Nothing was recovered from the possession of present applicant. Learned counsel further argues that there is no direct evidence and the entire case is based upon the hearsay evidence. On all these scores it has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a fit case where the applicant could be enlarged on bail. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the applicant relied upon Karim Haider and another v. The State, 1986 SCMR 938 and Munir Ahmed v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ

758. As against the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant it has been contended by the learned counsel for the State concedes to the above legal position and has no objection of the concession of bail could not be extended to the applicant. For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail which is granted provided if he furnishes surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One Lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Criminal Bail No.90 of 2005 stands disposed of as such. H.B.T./A-98/K Bail granted.