' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Applicants are booked under F.I.R. No,72 of 2011 of Police Station PIB Colony, Karachi for offences punishable under sections 392 and 34, P.P.C., (F.I.R.).
2. Briefly, facts deducible from above F.I.R., are that, Sehar Hussain, daughter of Syed Hussain, (Complainant) on 18-3-2011 was robbed of her purse which was snatched by the applicants in which were Rs,4,000, ATM Card of Bank Alfalah, Debit Card of HBL and a mobile phone. The robbery/snatching was reported by her at the above Police Station.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that they are innocent and have been implicated in the case falsely. Next it was contended that nothing was recovered from their possession and that the police foisted the items. It was also mentioned that admittedly F.I.R. Was lodged against unknown persons and identification parade was not made before the concerned Magistrate. It was also argued that F.I.R's time would show that it was lodged prior to arrest of the applicants. Then it was argued that the police paper would show that the arrest was made in violation of section 103 Cr.P.C. And that though the robbed items were recovered from the applicants and were sealed at such time were again de-sealed on the above police station which was again in violation of the law and therefore, the applicants are entitled to bail.
4. Learned State counsel opposed the bail application and stated that since the complainant has identified applicants and they were also found in possession of the robbed articles which were recovered from them after search they are not entitled to bail. However sealing of robbed articles at the time of arrest of the applicant and de-sealing the same before the Police Station was admitted and learned counsel also conceded that it was in violation of law as contemplated under Chapter 25 of the Police Rules 1934. It was also admitted by the learned counsel for the State that identification parade was made in the police station and not before the Magistrate concerned. As to lodging F.I.R. Prior in time to the arrest of applicants, it was mentioned that immediately after complainant was robbed of her articles, she reported the matter to the police station concerned, in terms of section 154, Cr.P.C. Whereas the applicants altogether different place and by different police and they brought the applicant before P.S., PIB Colony and therefore there was no violation of any law.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record. It may be noted that the applicants were apprehended in a very short span of time from altogether and faraway place then from the place of incident. The incident took place at U turn, Askary Park, University Road, Karachi whereas the applicants were arrested from Jhanda Shah, Essa Nagri, Karachi. It is not clear as to how the police promptly went to the Jhanda Shah, Essa Nagri and got hold the applicants and also found from their possession all these snatched articles of the complainant and then brought the applicants to the police station. All this require further probe. It seems that the police to show their efficiency picked up random persons from a random place and made them scapegoat of the F.I.R.
There are also violations of section 103, Cr.P.C. Inasmuch no independent Musheer had been taken.
When a law prescribes I thing to be done in a particular manner, then it should be done in such manner or should not be done at all. It was admitted by the learned State counsel that there was violation of law when it comes to sealing items from the place where applicants were arrested and their de-sealing at the police station which makes the case dubious and again falls into the pale of further inquiry inasmuch as the possibility of foisting of such articles on the applicants cannot be ruled out. It is also an admitted position that the identification parade was not conducted before the concerned Magistrate and it was before the police station which is of no significance and creates doubt.
6. For the above reasons, case of bail has been made out by the applicants and they are enlarged provided they are not involved in any other case and furnish solvent surety in the an amount of Rs,50,000 each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. The observations made hereinabove are tentative and/or for the purposes of present bail application which would by no stretch prejudice the trial of the case. Application is disposed of in above terms.