ORDER SHEET
----------------------------------------------------
Date Order
with signature of Judge
----------------------------------------------------
Dated of hearing 03.05.2012
Mr.
Fazal-ur-Rehman Awan Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.
Shahid Ahmed Shaikh learned APG.
-----------
Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi J; This bail
application is filed by the Applicant after rejection of his bail application
vide order dated 03.04.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karachi-East on Bail
Application No.443/2012.
Brief facts of the case as incorporated in the FIR are
that on 23.03.2012 while the complainant and his friend Zahir Abbas were going
to their home on motorcycle from Safora Chowrangi. At about 4:30 P.M. near
Commander CNG Pump three persons came on motorcycle 125 and on the point of
pistols snatched the purse of the complainant as well as his friends and while
the accused persons were running away suddenly police mobile came there. The
complainant narrated the story to the police party, who chased the accused
persons and encounter took pace between the accused persons and police party
wherein present Applicant received bullet injuries, he was apprehended in
injured condition while he two companions, whose names were disclosed by the
present Applicant Mullan @ Molvi and Karim @ Qari, fled away from the scene.
Pistol loaded with three bullets and one bullet in chamber as well as snatched
articles were recovered from the possession of the
present Applicant.
Mr. Fazalur
Rehman Awan learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the
Applicant/accused is innocent and has been implicated falsely in the present case by the
complainant in collusion with the police. He further argued that there is
overwriting in the FIR in respect of time of occurrence and time of report.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that prior to registration of the
FIR in the present case FIR No.101/2012 was also lodged by one Muhammad Ibqal
Shaikh against the Applicant over a dispute of a plot. Learned Counsel further
contended that in the FIR the complainant has stated that he and his friend had
signed the mashirnama of arrest of the Applicant but on perusal of the
mashirnama enclosed as Annexure “F” at 55 of the file, the same was signed only
by one Zaheer Abbas and HC Muhammad Aslam, according to the learned Counsel for
the Applicant this contradiction makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.
Learned Counsel further submitted that as per prosecution case the Applicant
was arrested from the place of incident in injured condition but no blood was
lying at the place of incident and inference can be drawn that no such incident
took place.
Learned AAG
Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Applicant and
contended that the Applicant/accused was apprehended and arrested in injured
condition after an encounter and a pistol loaded with three bullets and one
bullet in chamber and snatched articles were recovered from his possession and
the Applicant/accused, who failed to produce the licence of the pistol.
I have
heard Mr. Fazalur Rehman Awan Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Shahid Ahmed
Shaikh learned APG and perused the material available on record with their
assistance.
On tentative assessment
of material available on record, it is apparent that FIR was promptly lodged,
Applicant was nominated with specific role, snatched articles coupled with
pistol loaded with three bullets and one bullet in chamber were recovered from
the possession of the applicant when he was arrested in injured condition after
encounter with police. Memo of arrest of the Applicant was prepared at the spot
duly signed by Zaheer Abbas who is shown to be present in the FIR. Ocular
testimony coupled with medical evidence in the shape of medical report of the
Applicant/accused enclosed as Annexure “G” with the Memo of Bail Application
prima facie connects the present Applicant/accused with the commission of
offence as alleged against him.
Rampant law and order
situation prevailing in the city and country super normal hike and such kind of
crimes required to be curbed and if accused persons would be released on bail
within such short span of time they certainly take law lightly.
For the foregoing reasons,
the bail application was dismissed by my short order dated 03.05.2012 with
directions to the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of order and Applicant may repeat Bail
Application if trial is not completed within stipulated time.
Observations made
hereinabove are of tentative nature and the trial Court shall not be influenced
by any such observations.
J
U D G E