1. ' SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---By this order I would decide the bail application filed by the applicant Ghulam Fareed.
2. ' Precisely, the facts of the case as Narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 25-122011 the complainant along with his friends Muhammad Azam Abbasi and Nawaz Sher Jalil in this car bearing Registration No.ALH-132 at about: 0800 hours went to Hawksbay and while they were returning to their house at about 0010 hours near Eidhi Chowrangi one white Hi-Roof bearing No.CG-4538 wherein four persons were sitting intercepted them. The persons alighted from the said Hi-Roof and pointed weapons upon them and snatched laptops, mobile phones, one gold ring and one gold chain etc., etc., and ran away from the spot in the said Hi-Roof towards Maripur. Suddenly a police mobile came there and the complainant told the incident to them whereupon police chased the accused persons, who on seeing the police started firing upon police party and police also made firing upon the accused persons in encounter. Police cordoned/encircled them and arrested the accused persons at the spot and recoveries of the articles including weapons were made from them.
3. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant in connivance with the police. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that one of the co-accused has some business dealings regarding contract of scrap and labour charges at Karachi Port Trust with the complainant and due to such business dispute the applicant and the other co-accused have been implicated in the case. He further submitted that on bare reading of the F.I.R. It is well- established that the culprits opened straight firing upon the police mobile and in retaliation police had also made firing on the culprits in their self-defence but neither any of the culprits nor police officials sustained any injury nor police mobile was damaged, therefore, he submits that the story of encounter is absolutely false and concocted. Learned counsel further submitted that the police had already submitted challan before the competent court after completing investigation. It was also contended by the learned counsel that several mobile phones were allegedly recovered from the accused persons at the time of their arrest but no detail of SIM or mobile number of the complainant or any other details have been mentioned in the F.I.R., which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful and the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. In support of his case for grant of bail to the applicant, he has relied upon 2012 YLR 178 (Ghazi Khan v. The State) and 2012 YLR 211 (Asif v. The State).
4. ' Ms. Seema Zaidi learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and argued that the applicant was arrested at the spot and recovery of valuable articles including mobile phones and laptops was effected from the possession of accused persons and an unlicensed .30 bore TT pistol without number loaded with magazine having two alive bullets and one bullet in chamber was also recovered from the possession of the present applicant. Applicant has been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. And F.I.R. Was promptly registered by the complainant.
5. ' I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Tabbasum counsel for the applicant, Ms. Seema Zaidi learned State counsel and perused the relevant material available on record with their assistance.
6. ' It is crystal clear from the available material that the applicant was arrested at the spot after encounter and an unlicensed .30 bore TT pistol without number loaded with magazine having two alive bullets and one bullet in chamber was recovered from the possession of the present applicant coupled with other articles. F.I.R. Was promptly registered and applicant was nominated in the F.I.R.
7. ' Rampant law and order situation prevailing in the city and country super normal hike and such kind of crimes required to be curbed and if accused persons would be released on bail within such short span of time they certainly take law lightly.
8. ' On tentative assessm ent of the material available on record. I am of the view that the applicants' counsel has failed to make out the case for grant of bail and nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the version of the prosecution.
9. ' For the foregoing reasons, dismissed the instant Bail Application with the direction to the Trial Court to conclude C the trial within a period of three months from receipt of the order by any short order dated 13-4-2012.
10. ' Observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any such observations.