1. ORDER SALMAN HAMID ,J.---By this application, the applicant has sought post arrest bail in Crime No.11/2010 of Nau Goth, under section 17/3 EHO, 1979, 341, 337-H(i), P.P.C.
2. Briefly the prosecution story, as per F.I.R., is that on 24-4-2010 at 1400 hours complainant Mohammad Bux Lakhair lodged F.I.R. Stating therein that on 22-4-2010, since the thresher was working at the lands of the complainant, he along with his brother Rafique and Qadir Bux went there on a motorcycle with meal for their labourers. Returning back to their village, on a motorcycle at about 1100 hours near Village Molvi Ibrahim Machhi at common Katcha Path they were intercepted by the accused and co-accused who Were identified as Sono Machhi armed with K K Abid Machhi. Himat Shaikh and Gulb.Thar Machhi, all armed with pistols alone with two unidentified accused with lathes In the meantime, accused Sono and natched motorcycle from them while remaining accused snatched cash Rs.2000, a Nokia Mobile Phone 1208 and MCB Bank cheque amounting to Rs.200,000 along with a CNIC copy. The accused also snatched Rs.1200 and Mobile Nokia from Rafiq, the brother of complainant and they snatched L.G. Mobile Phone from Qadir Bux.
3. Thereafter Sono and Abid Machhi went away on the motorcycle of the complainant while the rest of accused took them to lands and after covering some distance, they fired in the air and then escaped the scene towards southern side. Thereafter the complainant narrated the facts to their elders who asked them to complain the matter to the elders of the accused therefore, the complainant met with their elders who keeping him on false hopes refused to return robbed property, hence the F.I.R. Was lodged to the above effect.
4. After registration of the F.I.R. The investigation was followed and in due course, the present applicant was arrested and sent up to stand trial before the trial Court. The bail plea that was advanced on his behalf was declined vide impugned order dated 24-5-2010, giving rise to the filing of the present bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record and the case-law cited.
6. On the basis of above facts, it was argued by the counsel for the applicant name that since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused and that there was delay of two days in lodging of the F I.R. And that it was not possible for the complainant to have identified the accused during night time as there was no light available and that since the prosecution witnesses are related to each other, a good case for bail was made out. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the following authorities:-
(1) Mithal v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 360)
(2) Abdul Aziz v. State (1996 SCM R 1693).
(3) Faraz Akram v. The State (1999 SCM R 1360)
7. On the other hand, bail application was vehemently opposed and contested by the State Counsel for stating that the applicant's name has been specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. And the role has been assigned to him and that pistol and mobile phones and three live bullets were also recovered from the co-accused, the mention of which was also very clearly disclosed in the F.I.R. And that the co-accused have also not been granted bail in the present case.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and assessed the record. It is interesting to note that the accused has no where denied that negotiations for return of robbed articles took place between the elders of the complainant and the accused. It was because of such negotiations that the delay had been caused in lodging the F.I.R. One wonders if the robbery did not take place, why the accused and/or their relatives thought it appropriate to enter into negotiations with the complainant for return of robbed articles. This fact itself goes to prove that prima facie case of robbery, as mentioned in the F.I.R. Has been made out and that it was because of such circumstances, that the trial Court did not grant bail to the applicant. The order passed by the learned trial Court is well reasoned order and requires no interference.
9. As far as the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, suffice to state that in the case reported as Mithal v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 360), bail was granted by the Honourable High Court of Sindh Karachi in that case after appreciating the facts that the firing was "going on", during scuffle and by appreciating that in such circumstances, it was difficult to identify or recognize applicant, bail was granted. However, in the present case, as per F.I.R., the complainant, was riding on the bike when the accused came right in front of the vehicle with head light on their faces; were stopped and robbed and thereafter the accused along with co- accused went away with the vehicle by firing in the air. Case is clearly distinguishable and does not come to the rescue of the applicant. Similarly, in the case of Abdul Aziz v. The State (1996 SCM R 1693), the co-accused were granted bail by the Court, it was only this factor which prevailed upon the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that the bail was granted by following the rule of consistency. However, in the present case, it has been admitted by the counsel for the applicant himself that the bail to the co-accused has also been refused. This case too is of no assistance to the applicant. Coming to the case reported as Faraz Akram v. The State (1999 SCM R 1360), it may be stated that the bail which was granted in that case was because the judges of Honourable Supreme Court appreciated therein that no overt act was ascribed to the applicant, as against this, in the present case, in the F.I.R., such act has been directly attributed against the applicant.
10. Under the above circumstances. I do not find any merits in the bail application which even otherwise is absolute repetition of the bail application preferred by the applicant before the trail Court with no additional or further grounds and the same is therefore, dismissed.