IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-765 of 2021

Applicant: Aziz Ahmed @ Raja, through

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Laghari, Advocate

Complainant: Naseer Ahmed, through

Mr. Mujahid Ali Shah, Advocate

State: Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar

Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing: 10.01-2022

Date of Decision: 10.01-2022

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through captioned bail application, Applicant/accused Aziz Ahmed @ Raja son of Fakir Muhammad Channa, is seeking his post-arrest bail in FIR No.161/2021, registered at Police Station Mirwah, District Khairpur, under sections 397 PPC. His earlier post-arrest bail plea was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khairpur, vide order dated 15.11.2021.

2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are that on 03.07.2021, complainant Naseer Ahmed along with his employees helper Muhammad Javed and chowkidar Akhtiar Ali were present at his filling station when at about 12.15 a.m, six persons duly armed with pistols and lathies came there on two motorcycles, who were clearly seen on the solar bulb lights, they overpowered the complainant party on the point of weapons, caused lathi injuries to chowkidar Akhtiar Ali on his head and other parts of the body, snatched his repeater and mobile phone from him, cash Rs.30,000/- from the complainant and cash Rs.100,000/- from the drawer of the office table as well as touch mobile of Vivo company from Muhammad Javed and then they fled away. Complainant brought the injured Akhtiar Ali to PP Pir Wasan wherefrom he was referred to RHC Mirwah for treatment and then complainant lodged such FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that there is delay of one day in registration of F.I.R which has not been properly explained by the complainant. He next contended that even the name of applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and his name was given by the complainant in his further statement, which too was recorded after delay of more than three months, therefor false implication of applicant after due deliberation cannot be ruled out. He also contended that co-accused Abdul Kareem has been granted pre-arrest bail by the trial court and case of present applicant is identical to that of co-accused. He further contended that nothing has been recovered from the applicant and pistol has been foisted upon him. He also contended that offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and both the PWs are servants of the complainant and no independent person has been cited as witness or mashir, therefore, in these circumstances the case of applicant requires further enquiry and he is entitled to enlarge on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail and has contended that though the name of applicant does not transpire in the FIR but in further statement complainant has fully implicated the applicant and his version was fully supported by the witnesses. He next contended that CCTV cameras are installed at the petrol pump and the applicant can clearly be seen in such recording of CCTV cameras committing the act of dacoity, as such the applicant is not entitled for concession of bail.

5. Learned D.P.G. adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and has further contended that the offence of dacoity by causing injury to the complainant party is a heinous one, therefore applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. He placed his reliance on the cases reported as 2010 MLD 1342, 2009 PLD SC 427 and 2018 P.Cr.L.J Note 50.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the material available on record with their able assistance.

7.                Though the name of applicant does not transpire in the FIR but he was fully involved by the complainant in his further statement u/s 162 Cr.P.C and witnesses have fully supported his version. Record reveals that the alleged robbed repeater as well as unlicensed weapon used in the commission of offence have been recovered from the possession of applicant. Though the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C but in non-bailable offence the grant of bail is discretionary which cannot be demanded as matter of right and the offence in which the applicant is involved is of heinous nature as the applicant has committed offence of dacoity by causing injury to the complainant party and such offences are rising in the society day by day which are liable to be dealt with iron hands. No malafide has been pointed out by the applicant on the part of complainant or the investigating officer for false implication. The recording of CCTV cameras wherein as per learned counsel for the complainant the applicant is clearly seen, has not been denied by the counsel for the applicant. It is well settled principal of law that the court has to make tentative assessment while deciding the bail application and deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage.  

8.                In these circumstances; I am of the considered view that there is sufficient material available with the prosecution which connects the applicant with the offence and the applicant has failed to make out his case for post-arrest bail. Accordingly, instant bail application is dismissed.

9.                The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA