IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 1117 of 2018

Habibullah……………………..…………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

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

Date of Hearing & Short Order : 25.09.2018

Mr. Javed Anwer, advocate for applicant

Mr. Sagheer Abbasi, APG

O R D E R

Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: The applicant is facing trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-VIII Karachi East in Crime No. 179/2018 under Section 395, 109 PPC registered at PS Shahra-e-Faisal, Karachi.

2. I have heard the arguments advanced from either side and perused record produced before me. After getting enlightened from the valued submissions made at bar and scanning the record, I have observed as under:

(a) The allegation against the applicant is that he alongwith co-accused committed robbery at Patrol Pump where the complainant was employing as Head Cashier.

(b) In the said incident, it is alleged that accused persons have come in a rickshaw and after confining the staff in the mosque of Patrol Pump, have looted considerable amounts from patrol pump and puncture shop and also deprived of the staff from their mobile phones and other valuables and have taken away DVR of CCTV with them.

(c) The applicant was arrested and from his possession, mobile phone and rickshaw involved in the robbery were recovered.

(d) As per prosecution case, four mobile phones recovered from applicant were actually received by him as share in the looted amounts and articles.

(e) Plea of learned counsel for applicant that accused Jehanzeb succeeded in getting pre-arrest bail does not create a ground for bail as the case of co-accused Jehanzeb is not at par.

(f) Only allegation against co-accused Jehanzeb was of suspected while nothing is available on record against him.

(g) Although no identification parade has been held but recovery of rickshaw and mobile phones on the applicant’s pointation is sufficient to say that he has some hand in the alleged offence as such at least at this stage, he is not entitled for bail.

2. In view of the above observation, I am of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled for bail at least at this stage as such; his bail plea is declined. However, trial Court is directed to pace-up the trial and at least record statements of material witnesses preferably within a period of 03 months and if statements of material witnesses are not recorded within the prescribed period, the applicant is at liberty to repeat bail application before trial Court.

3. It is to be noted that the above observations are tentative in nature and have been made only for deciding the bail application but the same shall have no effect on either side during trial by trial Court.

4. The above are the reasons for the short order dated 25-09-2018 whereby bail of the applicant was declined.

J U D G E