IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 494 of 2013.
Date of hearing
Order with signature of Judge
Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani, A.P.G.
Aftab Ahmed Gorar, J: Through instant application, the applicants Imtiaz Ali and Tarique alias Abid seek post arrest bail in Crime No.12/2013, of P.S Civil Line, Larkana, under Section 17 (3) Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. A bail application filed by the applicants before learned trial Court was dismissed, vide Order dated 07.08.2013.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that, complainant Nasir Ali lodged F.I.R with P.S Civil Line, alleging therein that, he is government contractor and on the fateful day he alongwith his nephew Sadaqat Ali and his Clerk Jamal Ahmed Bhutto with an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from MCB Lahori Muhalla, Larkana and while boarding in their car left the bank, as and when they reached at Ghinti Phatak, Larkana, three persons on a motorcycle came behind them and stopped their motorcycle in front of their car. The said persons alighted from their motorcycle; took out pistols from their folds and pointed their weapons upon complainant party. In the meantime one of the culprits took bag containing Rs.10,00,000/-; he also snatched wrist watch from the complainant. Then the culprits fled away by their motorcycle. In the meantime, a police party arrived there; the complainant narrated them the above facts. The police party followed the culprits, and the complainant went to police station and lodged the instant F.I.R, to the above effect.
3. Perusal of impugned order shows that after this incident, an encounter between the culprits and the police party took place on the same day within twenty minutes, which resulted into arrest of the present applicants on the spot alongwith robbed amount of Rs. Ten lacs, wrist watch, two pistols, bullets and the motorcycle, and such F.I.R vide crime No.13/2013 was lodged with same police station on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants, mainly contended that applicants have been implicated at the instance of police by foisting upon them the recovery of robbed amount; that names of the applicants do not appear in the F.I.R; that no identification parade has been held in the case and that the applicants have been implicated in this case by police, only in order to show their efficiency. Learned counsel, lastly contended that the applicants have been granted bail in connected case of police encounter by the trial Court.
5. Conversely, learned A.P.G. contended that, no malafides on the part of complainant or police are proved. His next contention was that the applicants are involved in a heinous offence. He further contended that the applicants were arrested by the police on the spot within shortest time after an encounter alongwith robbed property and crime weapons; this fact prima-facie connect the applicants with the commission of alleged offence and thus they are not entitled for concession of bail.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused the record.
7. After careful consideration of contention raised by respective counsel and examination of available record, it reveals that it is case of prosecution that three culprits robbed the complainant of his huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on show of force of weapons, and after the incident within some moments police arrived there, who were informed about the incident and they chased the culprits and succeeded to apprehend them alongwith robbed cash, and incriminating articles i.e. pistols and the motorcycle used in the crime. Hence it is suffice to say that except ocular evidence, circumstantial evidence is also connecting the applicants in the instant crime with reasonable grounds. The F.I.R was also lodged promptly. The offence appears to be of heinous nature, and such type of offence is increasing in the society day by day. No reason appears that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.
8. In view of above, the applicants have failed to bring their case within the purview of Subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C., thus they are not entitled for concession of bail. Consequently, by short order dated 27.01.2014, the bail application was dismissed and these are the reasons for the same. However, the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice case of either party at trial.
9. From the record it appears that, the connected case bearing Crime No.13/2013 of P.S Civil Line, Larkana, is pending trial before 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, while instant case is pending before 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. However, it would be appropriate that both the cases may be tried and decided by the same Court, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, is directed to assign these cases to one and same Court by transferring one of them.