ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

                                              Cr. Bail No. S-605 of 2009                               

DATE         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

12.10.2009.

Mr. Wali Muhammad Jamari, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh for the State.

                                                =                     

AHMED ALI SHAIKH J:      The applicants seek post arrest bail in crime No.162/2009 u/s: 412, 34 PPC of Police Station Hoosri District Hyderabad. As per prosecution story on 07.08.2009, the applicants alongwith three other persons were going in a Shahzore Pickup, a police party was busy in checking the vehicles. When police stopped the Shahzore Pick up No.KP-6085, three persons left the vehicle and made their escape good towards the orchard, meanwhile the present applicants were apprehended by ASI Muhammad Riaz Soomro and his subordinates. The vehicle was found to be robbed property of crime No.224/2009 u/s 20 Harabbah. On inquiry, applicants disclosed ttheir names as Muhammad Hassan, Ghulam Nabi and Ghulam Abbas. Police also secured a SBBL gun and four cartridges from accused Muhammad hassan and 30bore T.T. pistol with four live bullets from accused Ghulam Nabi and a currency note of Rs.100/- from accused Ghulam Abbas. On further inquiry, they disclosed the names of other three persons, who fled away, as Gulbahar @ Gulab @ Wazir 2. Badshah Shaikh and 3. Haji Moosa. The recovered property viz. Shahzore Pickup and the weapons were brought at Police Station where ASI Muhammad Riaz lodged FIR on behalf of State.

The applicants approached the trial court for bail but could not succeed and their bail application was turned down by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide order dated 09.09.2009.

It is inter-alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused that earlier a case bearing Crime No.224/2009 U/s 20 Harabbah and 17(3) Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered by one Shabir Hussain Gujar at P.S. Tando Jam in respect of the same vehicle in which none of the  applicants is nominated. He further submits that Shabir Hussain Gujar, the complainant of crime No.224/2009 has filed his affidavit before learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in which he exonerated the present applicants and categorically stated that the applicants Ghulam Nabi Jamali, Ghulam Abbas Lund and Muhammad Hassan are not the real culprits, who had committed robbery. Though the present applicants were challaned in the above said case but they have been admitted on bail by the trial court keeping in view the affidavit of complainant and other aspects of he case. His next submission is that the applicants arte innocent and have nothing to do with the possession of a robbed vehicle  viz. Shahzore Pickup. He went on to say that for an offence u/s 412 PPC, it is necessary to show that not only the accused were in possession of the robbed property but further that they know or have reason to believe that property has been transferred by commission of dacoity. His next contention is that the applicant No.3 is minor boy and as per School Leaving Certificate, his age is about 13 years and no recovery has been affected from him; the applicants No.1 & 2 hve also been granted bail in arms ordinance cases.

On the other hand, learned State counsel concedes the bail plea of applicant No.3 on the ground of his tender age whereas he opposed the bail plea of applicants No.1 & 2.

From the perusal of record, it transpires that names of the present applicants do not find place in FIR bearing Crime No.224/2009 of P.S Tando Jam. The applicants have been admitted on bail by the trial court in the above said case. Record further reveals that the applicants No.1 & 2 have been granted bail in Arms Ordinance cases. So for the applicability of section 412 PPC is concerned, the prosecution is not in possession of any material to show that the applicants were in knowledge that the vehicle in question was subject matter of dacoity. Under similar circumstances, bail was granted to the accused in a reported case of Farooq Ahmed Vs. State (2007 P Cr. L J 345. The applicants were not named in the previous FIR and no material is available on record except the recovery of vehicle to show that the applicants know or have reason to believe that the property held by them has been transferred by commission of dacoity. In absence of such material a case of further inquiry has been made out and it is yet to be decided at the trial whether offence allegedly committed by the applicants is punishable u/s 411 or 412 PPC.  . There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused have committed the offence, which falls under prohibitory clause of section 497(i) Cr.P.C.

For the foregoing reasons, I allow this application and admit the applicants on post arrest bail subject to furnishing their solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

                        The bail application stands disposed of along with listed applications.

                        The above are the reasons of my short order passed in court today.

Bail granted.

                                                                                                            JUDGE.

A.K.C