IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No.579 of 2015

 

 Present

 Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi

 

Date of hearing               :         19.10.2015

Date of order                            :         19.10.2015

Applicants                         :          Hamood-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi & Ibad-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi through

                                                    Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi, advocate                                            

 

                                        Versus

Respondent                    :             The State through

                                                          Mr. Shahzado Saleem, APG

                                                          a/w I.O. Zulfiqar Ali, P.S. Aziz Bhatti.

         

O R D E R

 

Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JApplicants, namely, Hamood-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi and Ibad-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi required in FIR No.105/2015 under Section 395 PPC registered at P.S. Aziz Bhatti, Karachi, have filed instant bail application for their release on bail, after dismissal of their bail application by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East vide order dated 23.04.2015.

 

2.         Brief facts as stated in the aforesaid FIR are that one Syed Zeeshan son of Latif Ali Kazmi, registered an FIR at P.S. Aziz Bhatti, Gulshan Town, Karachi on 26.02.2015 at about 2200 hours stating therein that he is doing business of computers and mobile alongwith his partner Shahid in the name and style of Gadget Inn situated in Clifton Zamzama and came into contact through one Rashid with Naeem-ur-Rehman Niazi for the purposes of purchase of laptops and Ipads and went at the House No.B-70 of Naeem-ur-Rehman Niazi situated at Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, along with his partner Shahid, and Rashid on 25.02.2015, where Naeem-ur-Rehman showed sample of laptop and ipad and it was agreed to purchase 25 I-pads and 20 Laptops in the sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, Thereafter, on 26.02.2015, the complainant alongwith his partner Shahid again reached at the house of Naeem-ur-Rehman Niazi, whereas, servant of complainant Muhammad Osama brought Rs.30,00,000/- at his house and the complainant and his companions were taken in the drawing room of the house of Naeem-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi by his servant where alongwith Naeem-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi, Hamood-ur-Rehman Khan Nazi, Ibad-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi (both sons of Naeem-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi), Tanzeelur-Rehman Niazi and one unknown person also came, and Naeem-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi asked the complainant to give him the amount.  However, when the complainant asked for the delivery of the articles, the accused Naeem-ur-Rehman took out his pistol and put it on the neck of complainant and called his guard, who also came along with gun and aimed at the complainant and his companions.  Thereafter, the accused persons snatched Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lac) on the force of weapon and also snatched his wallet, ATM card, wrist watch and the cash amount from the complainant, and thrown the complainant party out from his house by issuing threats that if the complainant will return back he will be killed. The matter was reported to the police, whereafter the investigation was conducted by the I.O., who after due investigation, arrested the accused persons, recovered robbed articles and weapon, and submitted challan before the trial Court.

 

3.         It is inter-alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent, who have been falsely implicated by the complainant in connection with some business deal, whereas, such incident has never taken place. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the ingredients of Section 392 PPC are not attracted as the alleged incident took place in the house of accused Naeem-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi pursuant to a business transaction, whereas, the present applicants, who are both sons of co-accused Naeem-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi, have been falsely involved in the instant case along with their father and two other accused persons, so that provision of Section 395 PPC may be invoked. Per learned counsel, the story as stated in the FIR is unbelievable, whereas, no specific role has been assigned to the present applicants with the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that there is no incriminating material available with the prosecution, whereas, the matter requires further inquiry, therefore, the applicants/accused may be released on bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance in the following case law:-

i)          Muhammad Shafi and another V. The State (PLD 1959 (W.P) Karachi 648.

 

ii)         Muhammad Abid Farooque V. The State and another (PLD 2015 Cr. Cases (Islamabad) 10.

 

iii)        Shahzore and others V. The State (2006 YLR 3167)

 

iv)        Muhammad Akhter V. The State (1994 P.Cr.L.J. 2340)

 

v)         Arshad Mehmood V. The State (1985 P.Cr.L.J. 2048)

 

vi)        Muhammad Fayyaz V. The State (2010 YLR 1934)

 

 

4.         Conversely, learned APG duly assisted by the I.O. of the case, namely Zulfiquar Ali, has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present applicants and submits that all the accused persons nominated in the aforesaid FIR, including present applicants are all of the same family, who are habitual offenders and have committed large number of similar crimes of committing robbery, and have deprived innocent persons of huge cash amounts, and other articles through fraud, cheating, on the force of showing weapons and issuing threats of their murder, in the garb of business deals and transactions.  According to learned APG, the entire family of accused, namely, Naeem-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi including his wife, namely, Mst. Samina Naeem and their sons, the present applicants, is required in large number of cases of similar nature, including the charges under Section 147, 148, 170, 324, 353, 392, 395, 408, 420 and 506/34 PPC in about 30 FIRs registered against them from the year 1991 till 2010 and also the present FIR, such crimes are reported by private persons, whereas, mostly at P.S. Aziz Bhatti, and the applicants are facing trial. Learned APG submits that such fact can be verified even from statement filed by the learned counsel for the applicants in respect of present applicants/accused and other co-accused persons, namely, Naeem-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi (father) and Mst. Samina Naeem (mother), which reflects that the applicants/accused are involved in such serious offences and in view of bail granted to them, they have repeated the same crime again and again by playing fraud and even committed robbery. It has been further contended by the learned APG and the I.O. that the FIR was registered promptly, whereas, the alleged offence has been committed in the presence of witnesses and recovery of robbed articles from the applicants/accused has been effected, whereas, if the applicants may be enlarged on bail, they will commit the same offence again as per their criminal record. It has been vehemently argued that the prosecution has a good prima-facie case against the applicants/accused, whereas, there is concrete material available with the prosecution and there are independent, private eye witnesses of the incident.  Moreover, per learned APG, recovery of the robbed articles and the weapons used in crime has also been effected from the applicants/accused. The I.O. of the case further informed that the co-accused Mst.Samina Naeem, who is the mother of the present applicants, impersonates her as a police officer and used the official telephone number to deceive the innocent persons, whereas, there are large number of innocent businessmen and customer in the market, who have been robbed at their hands. It has been prayed that if the applicants are released on bail, they will repeat the same offence and will also tamper with the evidence, therefore, they may not be released on bail.

 

5.         I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned APG and the I.O. of the case and examined the material available on record. From perusal of the contents of FIR it appears that the alleged incident occurred in the presence of private witnesses and has been reported promptly to the police, whereafter, the police arrested the applicants/accused from their house and has also recovered the robbed articles. The prosecution has also placed on record copies of FIRs registered against the applicants/accused, their father and mother, which reflects that they are involved in large number of criminal cases of similar nature. The offence as alleged is not bailable, whereas, the possibility of the applicants’ involvement in the instant crime at this stage cannot be ruled out as there is no allegation of previous enmity of the applicants with the complainant party or the police, whereas, the prosecution is in possession of sufficient incriminating material in the shape of eye witnesses as well as the recovered robbed articles. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants. Accordingly, Instant Crl. Bail Application of the applicants for grant of bail was dismissed vide short order dated 19.10.2015 and these are the reasons for such short order.         

                            

 

                                                                                   J U D G E