ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Cr. Bail Application No.932 of 2010. _____________________________________________________
Date Order with signature of Judge
1. For orders on M.A. No.4583/10
2. For hearing.
28.09.2010.
Mr. Agha Ghulam Akbar, Advocate for the Applicant
Mr. Abdullah Rajput, APG
-----------
Being aggrieved by and dis-satified with the order dated 28.08.2010 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, in Session Case No.168/2010, arising out of FIR No.177/2010, under Section 395 PPC, registered with P.S. Mithadar, whereby the bail application of the applicant/accused has been dismissed, the applicant/accused has filed instant bail application under Section 497 Cr. P.C.
2. The brief facts relevant for the purposes of disposal of the instant bail application and prosecution story as stated in the FIR are as follows:-
“On 07.04.2010, I brought 75 prize bonds of Rs.40,000/- each from Punjab and came at Bolton Market Robi Center and changing the bonds, purchased two packets bond of Rs.750/- valued Rs.1,50,000/- and while remaining cash of Rs.28,50,000/- was obtained. Thereafter I went to the office of Adnan situated Saima Trade Tower, H & H Money Chamber in order to meet with him, where from I was coming on foot towards City Station and when at about 1800 hours reached at I.I. Chundrigar Road, near Cotton Exchange Building, four boys boarded on two motorcycles came, who were young in ages wearing blue colour jeans and T shirt, one was Sanwala colour with slim and one was not ahir on the head, one is fate white colour and one is middle body and height, they took out pistols and snatched the bag containing cash from me and then boarded on the motorcycle went away towards tower. I in confused condition went to Punjab and then came back, and report the matter that on 07.04.2010, the offence was committed with me. Adnan has knowledge regarding cash with me and now I have suspect that on the information of Adnan, sent his men and got committed the offence. I would identify all four accused if seen again, who on the information of Adnan, on the point of weapons snatched the case from me and I pray for investigation.”
3. After completion of the investigation challan was submitted before the trial Court and the applicant/accused was shown as absconder in the challan sheet.
4. It is inter-alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that neither the applicant has been nominated nor any specific role has been assigned in the FIR. There is also unexplained delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR, whereas, no identification parade has been conducted. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant/accused was granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Session Judge in Pre-arrest Bail Application No.08/2010, which was dismissed for non-prosecution for the reason that due to unavoidable circumstances, the applicant could not reach the Court on the said date. Learned counsel further submitted that the co-accused namely Muhammad Zeeshan has been granted bail by the learned III Additional Session Judge, Karachi South, in Crl. Bail Application No.506/2010 vide its order dated 25.05.2010 (copy of such order is placed on record). Per learned counsel, besides being entitled to concession of bail on merits, on the ground of rule of consistency also the applicant/accused is entitled for the grant of bail. Per learned counsel, the learned III Additional Session Judge, Karachi South, has dismissed the bail application merely for the reason that since the applicant mis-used the concession of pre-arrest bail, therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of bail. Learned counsel further submitted that inspite of having explained the reasons for not attending the Court the learned III Additional Session Judge has not considered the same and rejected even the post-arrest bail application of the applicant/accused.
5. The learned APG did not oppose to the grant of bail to the applicant/accused, keeping in view hereinabove facts and the rule of consistency.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned APG and perused the record. I am of the opinion that it appears to be a case of further inquiry, whereas, co-accused has also been admitted to bail, accordingly, the applicant/accused is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the trial Court shall not be prejudiced by any such observation, and shall decide the case of the applicant/accused strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. It is further clarified that if the applicant/accused misuses the concession of bail the trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
J U D G E