' SALMAN ANSARI, J.--- This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Sajid Ali in the case arising out of F.I.R. No,176 of 2006 under sections 395/390/411/34, P.P.C. Lodged at Police Station Ibrahim Hyderi.
2. Brief facts of the case that complainant Abdul Rasheed Clerk of PAF Korangi Creek on 19-10-2006 along with Zubair Ahmed, Mohsin Majeed and driver Arshad were bringing cash of Rs,10,60,000 being salaries of staff, when they reached at Moscow Factory one car intercepted and 6 armed persons alighted from the same and forcibly took away the bag containing such cash and also snatched G-3 Rifle with 15 live cartridges from the gunman. Subsequently, on the arrest of applicant an amount of Rs,50,000 shown to have been recovered on his pointation of the loot.
3. The applicant's previous bail application was rejected by this Court vide order, dated 3-10-2007 and directions to the trial Court to record statement of the complainant within one month and thereafter, the applicant could move a fresh bail application which bail application was rejected by the trial Court by its order dated 2-5-2008 with the findings as under:-- "As per police papers, it also reveals that from the contents of F.I.R. Present accused along with absconding and co-accused, looted huge amount of Rs,10,60,000 from complainant, which was salaries of PAF staff. It is admitted position, that on the information of applicant/accused Javed Rasheed the other applicants/accused and co-accused was arrested by police. It is admitted position, that the accused/applicant Javed Rasheed himself confessed his guilt and recorded his 164, Cr.P.C. Statement before concerned Magistrate. It is also admitted position that accused/applicant Javed Rasheed is also civil servant of Pakistan Air Force. It is also admitted position, that some looted amount of Rs,50,000, Rs,1,83,000, Rs,1,06,500, Rs,55,500 and Rs,35,000 from each accused/applicants as shares were recovered by police on their pointation under Mashirnama.
' It is also admitted position that charge was framed by this Court against the accused persons and complainant and one an other P.W. Was examined by the prosecution and both P.Ws. Have implicated the accused/applicants in their examination-in-chief.
' It is also admitted position, that the bail application of applicants/accused Javed Rasheed, Zafar Hussain and. Sajid Ali was rejected by my learned predecessor, vide orders, dated 25-1-2007, 28-4- 2007 and 8-6-2007. It is also admitted position that the Honourable High Court of Sindh has dismissed the bail application of accused/applicant Sajid Ali in Criminal Bail Application No,661 of 2007, vide order, dated 3-10-2007 and also the bail application of accused/applicant Javed Rasheed in Criminal Bail Application No,735 of 2007, vide order, dated 3-3-2008. It is further admitted position that the bail application of the present accused/applicant namely Javed Rahseed, Sajid Ali and accused Zafar has also been dismissed by this Court, vide order, dated 19-3- 2008. It is also admitted position that the offence with which the accused charged does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
' In the light of above, position, discussion, and circumstances of the case. I am of the humbly position that the case of the applicants/accused does not call for further inquiry and applicants/accused are not entitled for bail at this stage. Accordingly three bail applications of applicants/accused are dismissed in the interest of justice. Observations made above are tentative in nature and will not influence of the mind of the Court at the trial."
4. The deposition of three P.Ws. One being the complainant Abdul Rasheed and P.W. Muhammad Arshad and Bashir Ahmed have been tagged with the bail application and on perusal of the same I find that no case of bail has yet been made out. There is sufficient evidence to show the involvement of the applicant/accused, the offence shown falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, I find no merits in this bail application which is accordingly rejected but at the same time I would direct the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
5. The above observation in no way meant to prejudice the trial of the applicant/accused before the trial Court.