' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.--- Raj Wali son of Hakeem Jan, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,166, dated 16-7-2004, registered at Police Station Tarnol, District Islamabad, for an offence under section 392/34, P.P.C. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Umar Hayat alleging therein that he plies Bus No,RPT-7686 between Rawalpindi to Lahore through Motorway on 16-7-2004 the petitioner along with his co-accused was sitting in the bus when the bus reached Link Road to Motorway at about 9 p.m. Two young boys rose from the backside of the bus, one boy rose from th- front side, they snatched the money and mobile phones of the passengers as well as Rs,22,000 from one passenger and Rs,3,400 from another passenger. Bail has been declined to the petitioner by the Court below.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegation against the petitioner is false and vague, the petitioner is innocent and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence.
Contend that the complainant did not know the name of the petitioner therefore, it was not possible for the complainant to mention the name in the F.I.R. The police has registered the case after arresting the petitioner and therefore he is entitled to the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Naeem Akhtar v. The State 1996 SCM R 511.
3. The petition has been opposed by the State on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. For committing a heinous offence whereby passengers of the bus were robbed of their belongings; the petitioner had succeeded in fleeing away from the spot and as per record he was apprehended in some other case and during interrogation of that case he got recovered pistol used in the present occurrence and also mobile phone which was robbed by the petitioner from the passengers; the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. Since the petitioner was arrested in another case and during investigation it was found that he was responsible for robbing the passenger of their belongings in the instant case as he got recovered the pistol allegedly used in the commission of this occurrence and also a mobile phone which was one of the robbed articles. The offence under section 392, P.P.C. Falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Sufficient material to prima facie connect the petitioner with the alleged heinous offence is available on the record. The case of Naeem Akhtar 1996 SCM R 511, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts.
' There is no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petition fails and the same is dismissed.