ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Cr. Bail Application No.933 of 2010. _____________________________________________________
Date Order with signature of Judge
1. For orders on M.A. No.4594/10
2. For hearing
27.09.2010.
Mr. Saeed Ahmed Khoso, Advocate for the Applicant
Mr.Zafar Ahmed Khan, APG
-----------
Being aggrieved by and dis-satified with the order dated 24.08.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi, in Session Case No.289/2010, arises out of FIR No.107/2010, under Section 395 PPC, registered with P.S. Ibrahim Haideri, whereby the bail application of the applicant/accused has been rejected. The applicant/accused has filed instant bail application under Section 497 Cr. P.C.
2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the instant bail application as stated in the FIR reads as follows:-
“On 03.04.2010 we all family members were sleeping, at about 0330 hours one person entered into the house through ventilator installed in the kitchen of the house and opened the gate, and other six persons also entered into the house, out of them some were aged about 18/20 years and some of 30/35 years, some of them were in pent shirt and some in shalwar qamiz, and they seems to be Bengali, and three of them were having pistols and I can identify them if brought before me and one of them aimed weapon upon us and remaining started searching the house and they took out cash amount of Rs.40,000/- lying in the purse of my wife, two mobile phones out of which one black berry and one Nokia 2700 and they also snatched the gold earring from the ear of my wife, my claim is against above mentioned accused persons who on gun point snatched the above mentioned articles, I reported the matter, take action.”
3. The challan has been submitted wherein three persons have been shown arrested in the alleged crime, charge has been framed and the accused persons are facing trial.
4. It is inter-alia by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant crime as neither he has been nominated in the FIR nor any identification parade has been made. It is further submitted that no recovery has been affected from the applicant, whereas, the alleged statement of the co-accused implicating the present applicant/accused in the instant crime is of no evidential value in terms of Article 38/39 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. It is further submitted that the alleged crime does not fall within the prohibitory clause and it is a case of further inquiry. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Muhammad Shafi v. The State reported in 2005 YLR 1693 and in the case of Muhammad Aslam and another v. The State reported in 2004 P. Cr.L J 1438.
5. On the other hand the learned APG has submitted that the applicant/accused has also been nominated in some other FIRs bearing Nos.154/2010, 155/2010 and 156/2010 involving similar crime, hence he is not entitled for the concession of bail. In rebuttal to the objections of the learned APG the learned counsel for the applicant/accused has vehemently opposed such objections and submitted that the involvement in other crimes cannot be considered as one of the ground for withholding bail to the applicant/accused for which he is otherwise entitled under the law. Per learned counsel the applicant/accused has been granted bail in the alleged crimes and facing trial.
6. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel and perused the record. Admittedly, the applicant has not been nominated in the FIR and has been connected at the instance of one of the co-accused. It further appears that no recovery of any of the robbed articles appears to have been shown from the applicant/accused nor any identification parade as required by law has been conducted. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. It appears to be a case of further enquiry, hence the applicant/accused is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- 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 cases 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.
Karachi. J U D G E
Dated .09.2010