Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2009 YLR 984

SARFARAZ vs THE STATE

Citation2009 YLR 984
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Bail Application No,1201 of 2008
Date2008-10-22
Judge(s)Ali Sain Dino Metlo
ResultBail granted

ORDER

1. ' ALI SAIN DINO METLO, I. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Addl. Advocate- General. The latter has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the stolen car was recovered from the possession of the applicant.

2. ' According to the prosecution, on 8-6-2008, at 2045 hours, near Sardar Complex, Block-5, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, two young-men, out of which one was armed with a pistol, robbed complainant Muhammad Younus of his Suzuki Mehran Car bearing No,ASN-071, one mobile telephone set of Samsung Company any cash of Rs,4,200 on gunpoint. They were not previously known to him.

3. ' The matter was reported to police. And the F.I.R, bearing No,349/08, was registered at police station, Gulshan-eIqbal, Karachi on the same day, at 2230 hours.

4. ' On 28-7-2008, police claims to have arrested the applicant along with co-accused Rashid after an exchange of fires, while they were travelling in a Car bearing Registration Plate No,AKL-311.A pistol of .30 bore with four cartridges was seized from him. A Kalashinkov with 10 cartridges was seized from Rashid. One repeater shotgun of .12 bore, with four cartridges, and one pistol of .30 bore, with three cartridges were also recovered from the car. They were allegedly left by the companion of the applicant, who had managed to escape. Such F.I.R, bearing No,441/08, was registered against them at Police Station, Shah Latif Town, Karachi.

5. ' It is stated that on 8-8-2008, the complainant identified the car seized from the accused to be his.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, Malir has granted bail to the applicant in F.I.R. No,441/08, inter alia, on the ground that the prosecution story did not inspire much confidence in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Karachi East, has refused bail to the applicant in F.I.R. No,349/08 only on the ground that the stolen car was recovered from him.

7. The memo of recovery of the car shows that a Car bearing Registration No,AKL-311 was recovered from him. The chassis number or the engine number of the car are not mentioned in the memo.

8. There is nothing to show that the engine number or the chassis number of the car recovered from the applicant tallied with the engine number or the chassis number of the car robbed from the 'complainant. In absence of any evidence in that regard, it cannot be said that the car bearing Registration No,AKL-311 was actually car No,ASN-071 robbed from the complainant. The matter requires only further enquiry. Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge, Malir has granted bail to the applicant in the case pertaining to the incident in which the car is alleged to have been recovered from him.

9. ' Another important aspect of the case is that the applicant was not put to the identification of the complainant and no reason has been assigned for that. The only inference which can be drawn will be that either the complainant had refused to implicate the applicant or the police knew that the complainant would not implicate him. Both the inferences lend support to applicant's plea of innocence.

10. ' For all these reasons, the case of the applicant is fit for the grant of bail. Accordingly, he is directed to be released on bail on giving one surety in the sum of rupees one hundred thousand and personal bond in the like amount to the trial Court.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch