2013 PLP 228 (YLR)

RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, J.

Applicant Ghulam Hussain son of Hussain Bux has been involved in Crime No.144 of 2011 of the Police Station, Bhitai Nagar for offences punishable under section 17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 395, P.P.C.

2. The relevant facts, as per prosecution case, are that on 4-9-2012 the applicant along with co-accused persons entered into the house of complainant and robbed house-hold articles along with cash. During the course of investigation, applicant was arrested on 13-12-2011 and after holding identification parade the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. (challan) was submitted on 26-12-2011 before the competent court of law.

3. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the name of present applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R.; identification parade is defective, recovery of alleged robbed property is foisted upon the applicant, the case is one which requires further inquiry, therefore, applicant is entitled for concession of bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon cases of BADARUDDIN v. STATE (2008 PCr.LJ 495), MEHMOOD AHMAD v. STATE (1995 SCMR 127), MUHAMMAD ALI v. STATE (2010 PCr.LJ 1120), ABDUL HAMEED v. STATE (2004 MLD 413), FAISAL v. STATE (2011 PCr.LJ 1178), MUHAMMAD AYAZ v. STATE (2011 SCMR 769) KHADIM HUSSAIN v. STATE (1985 SCMR 721) and TARIQ BASHIR v. STATE (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34 @ 42).

4. Conversely, learned A.P.G. submits that in fact the name of present applicant is not mentioned in the F.I.R., but subsequently he was identified by the P.Ws. through identification parade with specific role and some of robbed property/articles along with crime weapon viz. T.T. Pistol were recovered from the possession of the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for any concession of bail.

5. I have considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.-G. and examined the record.

6. In fact the name of present applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R., but subsequently he was identified along with specific role through identification parade before the learned Magistrate by P.W. Zubair and recovery of robbed property along with crime weapon viz T.T. pistol have been effected from the exclusive possession of the present applicant. During the course of identification, the applicant was identified and was picked up by complainant P.W. Zubair Ahmed by stating that he was the same person who first entered into the room and overpowered the family members of complainant by pointing out the pistol and kept them hostage all along until completion of commission of the offence. It is well-settled principle of law that the tentative assessment can be made at bail stage and deeper appreciation is not permissible. The offence falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and all P.Ws. have implicated the present applicant with the commission of offence in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. and through identification parade besides the recovery of some robbed articles and crime weapon was effected, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled for concession of bail at this stage. Conse-quently, this bail application was dismissed by my short order dated 6-8-2012 and these are the detailed reasons for the same. However, the directions for conclusion of the trial within three (3) months have already been given to trial Court through the short order. The law cited by learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable to the present case, as the same are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

7. The observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the time of trial. MWA/G-32/K Application dismissed.