2012 PLP 1789 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.

Applicants Abdul Razzak alias Zeeshan son of Imdad Hussain and Abdul Majeed son of Pir Bukhsh are arrested in Crime No.190 of 2011 on 22-4-2011 registered under section 392/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Quaidabad. Initially applicants applied for bail before III-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-Malir, who vide his order dated 27-5-2011 dismissed the bail application. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order present bail application has been filed.

2. The case as set out in the F.I.R. are that the complainant who is working at Babar Kanta, National Highway, on 22-4-2011 he withdrew an amount of Rs.2,50,000 from Al-Meezan Bank, Bin Qasim Town Branch, and came home in his Cultus Car. While, he reached at the house at about 1130 hours two motorcycles on which three persons were riding came there who were armed with pistol. The armed persons put him under pistol and snatched his two mobile phones and also taken-out Rs.2,50,000 from my car. One of the companions after having the mobile phones and money set on motorcycle and ran away. The complainant along with neighbourers apprehended two accused persons on the spot. The accused persons also sustained injuries due to fighting and thereafter F.I.R. was lodged.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity with the complainant and he further says that applicants were not arrested from the spot. No recovery of weapon or snatched articles has been recovered from the applicants. He further says that prosecution witnesses have not supported the version of the complainant in the F.I.R. and the case of prosecution is doubtful hence the applicants be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that applicants had gone to Babar Kanta, National Highway, where they had some exchange of hot-words with the complainant and due to this they have been falsely implicated in this case.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. has vehemently opposed the grant of bail. He submits that there is ample material available with the prosecution which prima facie connects the applicants with the commission of offence. He says that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the version in the F.I.R. He further says that applicants were apprehended at the spot in presence of two neighbourers of the complainant hence they may not be enlarged on bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6. A tentative assessment of the record demonstrates that no recovery of any weapon or snatched articles has been affected from the applicant. It is further noted that two prosecution witnesses have supported the version in the F.I.R. whereas one witness has not fully corroborated the statement of the complainant and he has stated in his 161, Cr.P.C. statement that Rs.5,00,000 were snatched from the complainant which the culprit had taken away with him, whereas the case of the complainant is that Rs.2,50,000 were snatched from him. Since there is no recovery of any weapon or snatched articles from the applicants and arrest on the spot is also disputed and there is also variation in the prosecution story, in my view, this case requires further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Since previous enmity has been alleged by the applicants plea of false implication cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, the applicants are admitted to bail on their furnishing solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand) each with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

7. In view of above this bail application stands disposed of. MWA/A-122/K Bail granted.