1. MAQBOOL AHMED AWAN, J.--- Applicant Rasheed son of Ibrahim; facing trial in Crime No,232 of 2008 of Police Station Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi, for the offence under sections 302/396, P.P.C., applied for bail and the same was dismissed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, vide order, dated 1-4-2009, has approached this Court for the same relief.
2. The facts of the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant S.I.P. Fazal Hussain on 11-7-2008 at Police Station Faisal Colony, which reads as under:--- "With reference to Report No,47, Roznamcha 1, S.-I. Fazal Hussain return back from Jinnah Hospital, I, S.-I. Met with MLO in respect of obtaining statement of injured Muhammad Nadeem son of Fateh Muhammad aged 35 years, who made his written statement that the injured is not in a position to give statement. Upon which I, S.-I. Went in emergency ward where A.S.-I. Javed Akhtar along with staff was present, who on enquiry disclosed that Muhammad Nadeem went in main Bazar for some work and standing at outside Fahad Gift Centre Shop, when a boy whose name later on came to know as Rashid son of Ibrahim came there and on the show of T.T. Pistol tried to snatch mobile phone, on resistance accused with his pistol made fire on Muhammad Nadeem due to which a bullet hit Nadeem on his throat and he became injured, the accused tried to escape, but the shop-keepers who were present there chased the accused and caught him hold and started beaten him due to which he received injuries. On receiving information police mobile reached at the spot and taken both of them at Jinnah Hospital, and recovered pistol .30 bore without number unlicensed loaded magazine with three bullets from the hand of accused and accused Rashid son of Ibrahim was arrested properly and a separate case for the weapon was also registered."
3. On the basis of F.I.R., the investigation was started and after completing the same, the challan was submitted in the Court of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, East Karachi, who sent up the same to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karachi East, from where the same was received by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East for trial, where the applicant has filed bail application as stated above.
4. Mr. Syed Imtiaz Ali Shah, the learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia, contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely involved by the complainant. Per counsel the name of the applicant finds no place in the F.I.R. And the complainant has not been cited as witness and the evidence of the complainant is of hearsay in nature, the police committed the violation of 103, Cr.P.C. While not joining the independent habitant person of locality as Mashir, the prosecution failed to record the statements of the injured witnesses, the applicant is behind bars since last 10 months and no progress is made. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Mir Muhammad v. The State reported in 1983 PCr.LJ 957, a case of Muhammad Riaz v.
5. The State reported in 1988 M LD 38, a case of The State through Deputy Director Anti-Narcotic Force, Karachi v. Syed Abdul Qayum reported in 2001 SCM R 14, a case of (1) Habib-ur-Rehman (2)
6. Assadullah v. (1) The State (2) Rahimullah Jan reported in 1999 YLR 2122, a case of Jamal Khan and another v. The State reported in PLD 2003 Kar. 195, a case of Muhammad Tahir v. Tariq Pervez and 2 others reported in 2004 PCr.LJ 143, a case of Muhammad Bashir Guraya v. Raja Muhammad Irshad and another reported in. 2005 YLR 1220 and a case of Zulfiqar Ali and another v. The. State reported in 2008 PCr.LJ 1121.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Ali Hyder Saleem, learned A.P.-G. Urged that the applicant committed the murder of innocent Muhammad Nadeem, arrested at the spot along with weapon used in the commission of offence, therefore, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant.
8. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. From perusal of F.I.R., it appears that the accused/applicant, who tried to snatch the mobile phone from the deceased and on his resistance, was fired by the applicant and deceased Muhammad Nadeem succumbed of his injuries at the spot. The applicant as per the record was arrested at the spot with the crime weapon. The statement of injured Muhammad Iqbal and deceased Muhammad Nadeem under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was recorded, who in their respective statements fully implicated the applicant in the commission of offence. No delay appears to have caused in lodging the F.I.R. The learned counsel failed to point out any enmity of the applicant with the complainant party or even with the injured for his false implication in the case in hand. From the material, there appears reasonable grounds, which connect the applicant in the commission of offence.
9. With due respect, I submit that the case-laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
10. For the foregoing reasons, as discussed above, I am of the considered view that the applicant has not made out the case for grant of bail, therefore, I am not inclined to grant him the bail, therefore, the Criminal Bail Application No,604 of 2009 is dismissed.