IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. B.A. No.725 of 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF JUDGE(S)
FOR ORDER ON MA NO.5330/18
FOR HEARING OF BAIL APPLICATION
Date of hearing: 14.6.2018
Date of Order: 14.6.2018
Mr. S. Musharraf Hussain Zaidi, advocate for applicant
Mr. Sagheer Abbasi, APG
ORDER
Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J. Through this Bail Application, the applicant is seeking his release on post arrest bail in case FIR No.103/2018 dated 02.4.2018 under Sections 392/34 PPC registered at P.S. Ittehad Town, Karachi.
2. The applicant Shafiq son of Abdul Qayyum has approached this Court after the dismissal of his bail application for post-arrest bail by the learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) vide Order dated 26.4.2018.
3. Facts necessary for the disposal of this bail application are that complainant Syed Rehan Shah lodged his FIR at Police Station Ittehad Town, Karachi alleging therein that he was present in his guest room while door was opened, when at about 04:00 p.m. four dacoits entered into his home out of them two were muffled and two were open faced and armed with pistol. They were appeared to be Punjabi and Pathan. They snatched his two mobiles namely Samsung and Nokia-230, wrist watch and cash amount of Rs.370 and also took away his licensed pistol and run away on their motorcycle.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that the case against applicant/ accused is false; that the name of the applicant/ accused is not appearing in FIR and after his arrest, he has not been put/ produced before any concerned Magistrate for identification parade; that in fact nothing was recovered from the applicant and recovery if any has been foisted upon him; that no confession is made by the applicant; that no brand of wrist watch is mentioned in FIR; that accused allegedly has been arrested on 03.4.2018; challan against applicant/ accused has been produced before trial Court and applicant is behind the bars without any substantial progress in trial. Therefore, under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, learned counsel for applicant has prayed for bail in favour of the applicant.
5. On the other hand, learned APG has opposed this bail application on the ground that the applicant was arrested on 03.4.2018 and alleged robbed articles were also recovered from the accused in presence of Mashirs, who have no inimical terms with the applicant, prima-facie shows the involvement of the applicant in this case.
6. Heard parties’ advocates. Record perused.
7. It is an admitted position that the name of the applicant/ accused is not appearing in FIR. It appears from the record that this applicant/ accused was allegedly arrested on 03.4.2018, but after his arrest, he has not been produced before any Magistrate for holding identification parade through witnesses. Since in this matter, no identification parade has been held, therefore, false implication of the applicant in this case could not be ruled out. The complainant has not mentioned the brand of his wrist watch in the FIR, but the recovery of said watch has been mentioned in the memo of recovery, therefore, it is yet to be determined at the time of trial whether the alleged recovery if any has been foisted against applicant/ accused or otherwise. As per challan sheet 06 witnesses have been shown to be produced by the prosecution in evidence, out of which 05 are police officials, therefore, no question does arise for tampering the evidence of these Police officials at the hands of the applicant.
8. As observed above, the identification parade has not been held in this case through complainant, therefore, evidence of PWs are required to be minutely scrutinized at the time of trial whether incident has taken place in a manner as disclosed by the prosecution, till then the case of the applicant/ accused requires further probe. Nothing on record that the applicant/ accused is previously convicted or he has remained indulge in such type of activities in past. It reveals from the record that the case has been challaned and this applicant/ accused is no more required for investigation. The applicant is behind the bars since his arrest and the case is at initial stage and it is not known when the trial would commence and complete, therefore, under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I admit the applicant/ accused on bail after his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. Needless to mention here that any observation if made in this order is tentative in nature and shall not effect the merits of the case. It is made clear that in case if during proceedings the applicant/ accused misuses the bail, then trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of the applicant after due notice to him.
Judge
asim/pa