' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- Through this single order I propose to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,1428 of 2007 (Mir Agha v. The State) and Cr. Misc. No,30 of 2008 (Malang v. The State), as both these arise out of one and the same F.I.R. And involve common question of law and facts.
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that in F.I.R. No,640 dated 5-8-2007, Police Station Bhana Mari, Rasool Khan complainant narrated the story that on 22-7-2007 he was coming from his village Tank to Peshawar. When he reached Peshawar on Kohat Road, he hired a Rickshaw for his house situated at Haji Camp Peshawar. When the Rickshaw covered some distance, the Rickshaw driver made another person to sit with him in front seat, who was standing on the road and according to the driver was his companion. When they reached near the shrine of Toor Baba, the person sitting on the front seat with the Rickshaw driver aimed pistol on the complainant and snatched away one mobile set and cash amount of Rs,9800. The complainant was asked to deboard from the Rickshaw, who later on made F.I.R. In Police Station, as mentioned above. After some days, he saw a photo clipping in the newspaper and recognized the two petitioners to be the culprits and charged them for the commission of the crime. The petitioners submitted application to the Judicial Magistrate-VI Peshawar, which was rejected on 28-8-2007. Then they submitted an application to Additional Sessions Judge-IX Peshawar, who vide order, dated 6-11-2007, also rejected the same and hence the present bail application.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted written arguments ,which were thoroughly perused. Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khan Shangla, Additional Advocate-General argued that although the petitioners have not been charged in the F.I.R. But from the clipping they were duly identified and have been charged by the complainant for the commission of the offence and thus they are not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. I have given deep thoughts to the arguments advanced. The section of law with which the petitioners have been charged carries a maximum sentence of ten years. Such-like crimes have become order of the day and this must be dealt with iron hands. Here the quantum of sentence is not important but the modus operandi of the accused and the venue of crime is rather more important. Such-like crimes have eroded our society, which is neither permissible under the law nor under the norms prescribes by the society.
' In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession or bail, hence both the bail applications are rejected. The challan is complete and the prosecution is directed to put complete challan in Court as early as possible.