2000 PLP 1542 (MLD)

Muhammad Azeem Panhwar for the State. The applicant is facing trial in a case under sections 452, 324, P.P.C. and 17(3), Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance arising out of Crime No. 189 of 1999, Police Station Dadu. The brief facts as narrated by complainant Pir Aijaz in the F.I.R. are that he has a house near to the resident of his cousin Niaz Muhammad. On 17‑9‑1999 at about 9.00 p.m. he went to the house of his cousin Niaz Muhammad where they were sitting alongwith other inmates of the house when at about 9‑30 p.m. three young persons entered the house, out of whom two were armed with pistol whereas the third was armed with iron rod. On coming there they demanded keys of almaries. They started robbing property. Upon which Niaz Muhammad put up resistance and the culprits caused injuries to him by pistol butt and iron rod. He fell down on the ground. His wife Kalsoom want ahead to save her husband and the culprits caused injuries to her. The culprits after committing robbery decamped from the scene of offence. Thereafter the complainant party raised cries which attracted some of the neighbours. The injured were removed to the hospital and complainant Pir Aijaz lodged first information report wherein the details of robbed property have been stated. It is contended by Learned counsel for the applicant that the name of applicant does not figure in the F.I.R. The culprits were not previously known to the police or complainant, It is argued that there is nothing on record which could indicate as to on what basis the police had arrested the present applicant. It is argued that applicant was arrested on 1‑11‑1999 and identification test was held on 3‑11‑1999. The learned counsel has further pleaded that no role is assigned to the present applicant in an identification memo. and the watch allegedly recovered from him is of common pattern. It is stated that the applicant is residing at Saudi Arabia and two persons have filed their affidavits to that effect. The learned counsel has submitted that this is a case of further inquiry and accused may be released on bail. The reference is made to cases Zahid and others 1998 PCr.LJ 45, Inayat and another v. The State 1975 PCr.L1 1271, Habibur Rehman and another v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 1773, Muhammad Akbar v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 1068, Mukhtar Ahmed alias Mokha v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ

186. Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed this bail application on the ground that three bandits sneaked into the house of injured Niaz Muhammad and robbed the valuables worth Rs.5.97,

000. He stated that the arrest was made on 1‑11‑1999 and the applicant was put to identification test before Civil Judge and F.C.M. Dadu on 3‑11‑1999. The applicant was picked up in identification test by two injured witnesses namely Niaz Muhammad and Mst. Kalsoom and the complainant Pir Aijaz. It is argued that on 10‑11‑1999 one robbed watch of Omega company was recovered from the possession of accused and also one pistol which the applicant was c in at the time of robbery. The perusal of recur rave s that F.LR. of this case was recorded wherein the names of culprits are not mentioned. The arrest has taken place on 1‑11‑1999 and on 3‑11‑1999 the present applicant was picked up by the complainant and two injured witnesses. The complainant and injured had no enmity with him and had no reason to implicate him in false cases. The robbed property which is specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. has been recovered from him. The specific role has been assigned to this applicant in identification memo. This is a fresh case of November, 1999 and has not proceeded as yet. The offence under sections 17(2), Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and 324, 412, P.P.C. are covered by prohibitory clause. Cases referred to by learned counsel have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. At this stage it cannot be held that there appear no reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Under these circumstances the bail to accused is declined. H.B.T./A‑49/K Bail declined