IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 1042 of 2017

Mohsin………………….………………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

The State…………………………….……………..……………….Respondent

Date of hearing and order : 18.07.2017

Mr.Samiullah Soomro, advocate for applicant

Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, APG for State

O R D E R

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: This order will dispose of instant bail application moved by applicant who is facing trial in the case registered vide Crime No.174/2017 at PS Mubina Town under Section 392/34 PPC.

Allegation against the applicant is that he along with co-accused snatched mobile phones and cash amount from the complainant while he was standing on the road side and waiting for a bus.

In support of instant bail application, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a KMC Contractor and he has never committed any such offence nor he has any criminal record. According to him, applicant was apprehended during snap checking and as some hot words were exchanged between him and police party; therefore, he has been involved in this crime. Regarding recovered mobile phones, contention of learned counsel for applicant is that both the mobile phones belong to the applicant. He further submits that place of arrest is a thickly populated area but no private witness has been associated at the time of arrest of applicant. He points out that there was no retaliation from the applicant’s side and case against the applicant does not fall within the prohibitory clause. He also submits that IMIE numbers of mobile phones are not mentioned in the FIR which creates doubt, hence, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail.

Learned APG opposes instant bail application on the grounds that the applicant was arrested on the spot; TT pistol was also recovered from him and as per Ballistic Expert’s report, the same was in working condition.

I have considered the arguments and scanned the available record with the assistance of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned APG. Contention of learned counsel that recovered mobile phones belong to the applicant does not bear any weight at this stage as no material is placed on record in this regard. The applicant was arrested on the spot and these types of offences are rampant in the town of Karachi which are not only against the individuals but in fact are also against the whole society. Therefore, I am of the view that at least at this stage, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly bail application is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to record evidence of the complainant within a period of one month and after recording evidence of the complainant, the applicant will be at liberty to move fresh bail application before the trial Court which will be decided on its merits.

J U D G E