IN THE
HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.
468 of 2017
Faizan Ahmed
...
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
Date
of hearing and order : 14.07.2017
Mr. Muhammad Yousuf,
advocate for applicant.
Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, D.P.G.
O R D E R
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: This order will
dispose of the bail application moved on behalf of the
applicant Faizan Ahmed @ Lamba,
who is involved in an offence reported at PS Mobina
Town through FIR No. 286/2013 under Sections 395, 397 & 324 PPC.
2.
The allegations against the applicant are that he along with his
co-accused persons entered into a shopping centre wherein complainant Mohammed Rehan had a shop of cosmetics. The applicant along with his
associates on the show of lethal weapons looted the cash amount, valuable
articles, and jewellery from the complainant and other shopkeepers including a
jeweller namely Al-Arif Jewellers. It is also alleged
that while decamping after the incident, they injured one shopkeeper namely Arif.
3.
The learned counsel for the applicant argued the matter at length.
Briefly, the arguments are that there is no judicial identification of the
applicant. The details of robbed articles, especially jewellery
is not mentioned in FIR or other prosecution documents. The complainant
or injured has not mentioned the description of the applicant. The only
evidence available with the prosecution is an extrajudicial confession, which
is inadmissible under the law.
4.
The learned APG while opposing the instant bail application submits that
the 'Memo of Place of the Incident' is having the entire detail, including the
robbed articles, even firing marks and map of the place is also available in
the police file. He points out that the applicant himself voluntarily got recovered
the robbed articles, and the recovery witnesses are private persons. The
recovered articles were identified by the complainant. According to him, the
applicant was arrested in a case u/s 23 (i) (a) SAA and a pistol was also
recovered from the applicant and the empties recovered from the place of the
incident match with the recovered pistol. He submits that as per the CRO, the
applicant is involved in other cases of similar nature.
5.
I have scanned the entire material in the light of the arguments
advanced. The alleged incident was taken place during broad daylight in which
the complainant and other shopkeepers were deprived of considerable cash amount
and valuable articles. According to the learned APG, the applicant was arrested
in a case for keeping illicit arms, and a pistol was recovered from him and the
empties recovered from the place of incidents matched with the recovered
pistol. This fact was not controlled by the learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant is involved in a heinous offence and as per the CRO report, he is involved in a series of similar cases. It will
make no difference that a judicial identification test is not made, but it
transpires from the record that the complainant and injured have identified the
applicant from the photographs and jail record collected by the investigation
officer from the jail, wherein the applicant was already confined in 23 (i) (a)
SAA case.
6.
In my humble view, sufficient material has been collected by the
investigation officer against the applicant.
From the record, it appears that he is the member of a gang of looters
and robbers, and there is an apprehension of tampering with the prosecution
evidence by the applicant if released on bail.
7.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the applicant is not entitled
to concession of bail, as such the instant bail
application is declined. However, the trial court is directed to pace up the
trial and take every possible effort to conclude the trial within the shortest
possible time.
8.
I would like to make it clear that the above observations are purely
tentative in nature, and the same is only meant for the purpose of bail and
would have no impact or effect on any party during the trial.
These are the reasons of my short order dated
14-07-2017.
J U D G E