ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 388 / 2010.

 

Date                                    Order with signature of Judge

1.     For orders on M.A. No. 1740/2010.

2.     For hearing.

27-04-2010

Mr. Kanwar Altaf Bhatti, advocate for the applicant/accused.

Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani A.P.G for State.

 

AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH, J.          The applicant Allah Ditta @ Mama seeks bail in crime No. 291/2009 of police station Model Colony for an offence registered U/Ss 392, 411 and 34 P.P.C.

The applicant approached the trial Court for bail but could not succeed as his bail plea was turned down by trial Court vide order dated: 26.03.2010.

The facts of the prosecution case in nut shell are that on 17.12.2009 one Muhammad Ashraf Niazi registered the case stating therein that on same date when he was sleeping in the room of his house, at about 0345 hours his younger son Danyal knocked the door, his wife opened the door, suddenly three muffled faces persons duly armed with weapons, who had tied hands of his son and aimed their weapons at the head of his mother entered in his room. On gun point, they robbed Rs.65,000/- cash, five mobile phones and one gold set, laptop, Yashica Camera, DVD player, repeater No. 8555156, gun No. 954565, 9MM pistol and other articles and fled away. All the three persons were looking like Sindhi or Siraiki and labourers by profession. One of them was a young man while the rest were middle aged.

It is inter alia contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the above case due to malafide intention of the police, there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R, no incriminating articles have been recovered from the exclusive possession of the present applicant and no identification parade has been arranged. He has lastly contended that at the most, case of the present applicant would fall U/s 411 P.P.C, which is out of purview of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.

Conversely Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani, learned A.P.G appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the bail plea of the applicant/accused on the ground that the applicant has led the police party and produced the robbed articles, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of bail.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned A.P.G for the State and perused the material available on record.

No doubt the name of the applicant does not appear in the F.I.R as at the time of occurrence all the three accuse were muffled faces, therefore, non mentioning their descriptions or features is but natural. Moreover on 18.01.2010 the present applicant alongwith co-accused was arrested in a case crime No. 20 of 2010 U/S 13-D of Arms Ordinance and during interrogation he disclosed that he had committed the above offence with co-accused and led the police party to his residence where present applicant and co-accused were residing and on his pointation police secured the robbed repeater, laptop, gun No. 954565, 9MM pistol and other articles. The complainant has also identified the above said articles. Since the robbed articles have been secured from the possession of the applicant and some of the articles are very costly and valuable, therefore same can not be foisted upon the applicant. Though in his further statement, the complainant has stated that during the above occurrence, the faces of the culprits were opened and he can identify the culprits, but it is very strange that the Investigating Officer could not approach the concerned Magistrate for holding the identification parade of the present applicant. The applicant was found in possession of robbed articles, which act falls U/S 412 P.P.C, and punishable for life or with R.I for a term which extend to ten years.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in the bail application and accordingly dismiss the same. However the trial Court is directed to conclude the case within two months and no adjournment shall be granted to the either party on any flimsy grounds. Before parting with the above order, I would like to direct the concerned S.P Investigation to initiate the departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer as he did not take any efforts with regard to the identification parade of the applicant/ accused.

 

                                                                                                       JUDGE

ABDUL SALAM P.A