Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ARIF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Ali Sain Dino MetloAamir Mansoob Qureshi,Sardaruddin Qureshi
2007 Y L R 2026
2007 Y L R 2026
[Karachi]
Before Ali Sain Dino Metlo, J
MUHAMMAD ARIF---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.227 of 2007, decided on 17th April, 2007.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497 & 498-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392 & 397---Bail, grant of---Most important evidence in the case would have been the evidence of victim himself but Investigating Agency had chosen to keep him out for which there could be no justification---Prosecution relied upon only two things, first; joint pointation of the place of incident, which was not a secret and had already been visited by the Investigating Officer; secondly evidence of recovery of number plate lying open near a tree on the bank of river, a place accessible to everybody and not in applicant's possession---Reasonable grounds could not be said to be existing to believe the accused guilty of offence---Accused was entitled to bail, in circumstances.
Aamir Mansoob Qureshi for Applicant.
Sardaruddin Qureshi for State Counsel.
ORDER
ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.--Heard Messrs. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi Advocate for the applicant and Sardaruddin Qureshi, State Counsel. The latter opposes bail and contends that as a matter of fact the applicant was involved in the crime but the Investigating Officer has spoiled the case and destroyed the evidence.
2. According to the prosecution, on 9-5-2006, at 0100 hours, on main road in front of Ladies Park, Sector 12-L, Orangi Town Karachi, three robbers, armed with pistols, robbed, on gun-point, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal of his motorcycle, mobile phone, glucometer and cash of Rs.3,500. He reported the matter to police on 14-5-2006 i.e. after five days saying that the robbers were not known to him and by appearance they appeared to be Bangalis or Burmees.
3. On 15-5-2006, police of Police Station Hub arrested co-accused Bahawal Khan and recovered engine and other parts of motorcycle from his possession. On interrogation, Bahawal Khan allegedly told police that applicant Muhammad Arif was also with him in .the commission of robbery. He was arrested on 23-5-2006 and on the next day i.e. on 24-5-2006 the number plate of the motorcycle was recovered from the bank of Hub river on his and co-accused Asif's joint pointation. It was lying open near the trunk of an acacia tree. On the same day, they allegedly jointly pointed out the place of incident also.
4. The learned State Counsel confirms that no effort was made to get the applicant identified by the victim, who was the only eye-witness in the case.
5. Learned counsel for the 'applicant contends that according to the description mentioned in the Hulia Form prepared by police itself, the applicant is Pathan in fact as well as by appearance and it was for that reason that the victim was not called for identification.
6. The most important evidence in the case would have been the evidence of the victim. The investigating agency has chosen to keep him out, for which there can be no justification. The prosecution relies upon only two things. First, joint pointation of the place of incident, which was not a secret and had already been visited by the Investigating Officer on 15-5-2006, and secondly, evidence of recovery of number plate lying open near a tree on the bank of Hub river, a place accessible to everybody and not in applicant's possession and that too on joint pointation of the applicant and co-accused Asif. Prima facie both the pieces of evidence are inadmissible.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant guilty of the offence. He is, therefore, entitled to bail. Accordingly, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-65/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.