2012 PLP 581 (MLD)

SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.

This bail application is directed against the order dated 21-9-2011 passed by learned VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi (East) in Criminal Bail Application No.1580 of 2011. Precisely, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 21-6-2011 when the complainant was coming on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KEX-9119, Black Colour, Unique, Model 2011 and reached at Country Garden near Bilal Masjid, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, at 2125 hours two persons came on their motorcycle of an unknown number, put gun on the complainant, who scared and they ran away by taking the motorcycle of the complainant. Complainant got registered F.I.R. No.205 of 2011 on 23-6-2011 at Police Station Mubina Town, Karachi. On 29-6-2011 the applicant/accused was arrested in some other case of Police Station Sachal within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Gulzar-e-Hijri when the applicant was coming allegedly in suspicious condition on motorcycle bearing same engine and chassis numbers. Police submitted charge-sheet No.74 of 2011 on 10-7-2011 in the court of competent jurisdiction. Applicant preferred Bail Application No.1512 of 2011, which was dismissed on 30-8-2011 by IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi-East. Thereafter, due to some typographical error the applicant repeated Bail Application before the Trial Court which again was dismissed on 21-9-2011, hence this Bail Application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to mala fide of the complainant. He further contends that there is an unexplained delay of three days, no name/hulia of the accused has been mentioned in the F.I.R. and the applicant was arrested within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Gulzar-e-Hijri by the police of Police Station Sachal during patrolling and the motorcycle was taken into custody to police under section 550, Cr.P.C. without mentioning the registration number of the said motorcycle. These facts according to learned counsel of the applicant are establishing that the case of the applicant is of further enquiry and the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. Conversely, learned Assistant Prosecutor General vehemently opposed the instant bail application and submitted that snatched motorcycle was recovered at the spot from the possession of the applicant when he was arrested in another case of Police Station Sachal. Snatched motorcycle recovered from the applicant/accused was seized forthwith by police officials of Police Station Sachal and the matter was reported to the concerned Police Station. Learned A.P.-G. further submits that offence alleged against the applicant comes within prohibitory clause and the applicant has failed to make out the case for the grant of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Assistant Prosecutor General and perused the record carefully. Nothing has been brought on record by the applicant that he has any enmity or ill-will with the complainant. Snatched motorcycle was recovered from the possession of the applicant and the applicant along with instant bail application has enclosed memo. of arrest and recovery dated 29-6-2011 at page 35 with the Memo of Bail Application, wherein engine and chassis numbers of the snatched motorcycle are mentioned. The motorcycle was snatched on 21-6-2011 and was recovered by the police while the applicant was driving the same. It is not out of place to mention here that in the city of Karachi the offences of snatching of valuable articles of citizen like car, motorcycle and mobiles have increased tremendously. Nobody is feeling safe. If a person leaves his house, there is no guarantee that he will return back to his home safely. Keeping in view this scenario and law and order situation of the city, some stringent steps are required to be taken by the law enforcement agencies. Therefore, while remaining with the four corners of law to curb this alarming situation the accused persons should not be allowed any concession of bail. For aforementioned facts, circumstances and since the matter falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, I have dismissed the instant application by my short order with the direction to the Trial Court to frame charge and record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses within a period of two months from receipt of this order to the Trial court. After completion of such exercise to be carried out by the Trial court the applicant is at liberty to file fresh bail application. Above are the reasons of my short order announced on 25-10-2011. H.B.T./M-183/K Bail refused.