1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.--- The applicant is facing trial in Crime No,124 of 2006 of Police Stition Ubauro, under section 412, P.P.C.
2. ' The allegation against the applicant is that he along with other co-accused were found in possession of two cars which are the robbed property in Crime No,92 of 2006 of Police Station Joharabad Karachi. It was further alleged that the applicant along with other four accomplices used to rob the cars from Karachi and the applicant and other co-accused while keeping in their custody the cars have committed an offence punishable under section 412, P.P.C.
3. ' The applicant moved bail application before the trial Court which was rejected vide order, dated 2-8-2006 on the ground that the offence is falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the offence in question is against the public and society at large and now raising day by day with passage of time and it has become necessary to discourage such kind of offence, learned trial Court has further observed that there is sufficient material available on record which connects the applicant/accused in the commission of alleged offence.
4. ' Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Dayo, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that case does not fall within the ambit of section 412, P.P.C: and at the best it falls within the ambit of sections 411 and 414, P.P.C. He further submits that for the offence under section 412, P.P.C. No separate F.I.R. Can be registered and the person found in possession of robbed property can only be implicated in the F.I.R. Which was lodged for the robbery. He further submits that there is no evidence against the applicant that he has committed any robbery and mere possession of a robbed property is not sufficient to connect the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence. He further submits that the case does ncit fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And that the case of further inquiry has been made out.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Memon, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of the bail to the applicant and has submitted that section 412, P.P.C. Has been rightly applied as the robbed property was recovered from the exclusive possession of the present applicant. He further submits that applicant has failed to show how he has come in possession of a car which is a robbed property. He further submits that the recovery of robbed property is sufficient to implicate the applicant in the alleged commission of the offence.
6. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available before me.
7. The allegation against the applicant is that he was found in possession of the car. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That the applicant along with four other accomplices used to robbed cars from Karachi. While registering a case under section 412, P.P.C. It is necessary to show not only that the accused was in possession of the robbed property but further that he knew or had reason to believe that the property had been transferred by the commission of the dacoity. The offence under section 412, P.P.C. Is much more serious than offence under section 411, P.P.C. Where there is no evidence to show that the accused had knowledge that the property in possession is subject- matter of the dacoity he cannot be tried and convicted under section 412, P. P. C .
8. ' Learned counsel for the applicant- has filed photocopies of two F.I.Rs, bearing No,92 of 2006 and 24 of 2006 which were lodged in respect of cars found in possession of the applicant. He further submits that applicant has got bail in F.I.R. No,92 of 2006 and copy of the order has been placed on record . He further submits that applicant was not named in both the F.I.Rs, and the allegation that he was committing the robbery has no basis.
9. ' I have perused both the F.I.Rs, in which the allegation of committing the dacoity is against two persons and not five persons and the applicant was not named in the said two F.I.Rs, There is also no material available on record except the recovery of car to show at the applicant knew or had reason to believe that the property held by him has been transferred by the commission of dacoity.
10. In absence of any material a case of further inquiry has been made out. Furthermore it has to be decided at the trial whether the alleged offence committed by applicant is punishable under section 412 or 411 and 414, P.P.C. I am, therefore satisfied that. There are no reasonable grounds for believing, that the applicant has committed an offence which is falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
11. ' In view of above I allow this bail application and direct that the applicant Farooque Ali son of Nazir Ahmed Arain be released on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,50,000 (Rs, Two lacs fifty thousands only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
12. ' Criminal Bail Application No,412 of 2006 stands disposed off in the above terms.