1. ' SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---This bail application has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant against the order dated 5-8-2011 passed by learned and Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi ('Central) in S.C. No, 251 of 2011, dismissing the bail application of the applicant/accused, who is involved in case Crime No,64 of 2011, registered at Police Station Gulbahar, for the offence punishable under sections 392/34, P.P.C.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that on. 21-4-2011 complainant Muhammad Mushtaq, lodged F.I.R at Police Station Gulbehar, that on the above date' he was going to meet with his paternal uncle and when at about 4-00 p.m. He reached at Lasbela bridge, two boys intercepted him, put him under fear of death by showing weapon and snatched his mobile phone Nokia China and Rs,150 and on his shouting police officials who were on patrolling duty on a motorcycle reached there, whereupon one person escaped, while another was apprehended by the Rangers officials who disclosed his name as Rashid son of Murad Bukhsh and also disclosed the name of his escaped companion as Munir. From his hand the robbed mobile phone and cash Rs,150 of complainant were recovered. In the meantime police mobile also reached there and brought the accused and case property to Police Station and lodged the F.I.R against him.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/ accused has contended that the applicant/ accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the F.I.R with the conspiracy of complainant. He further contended that the trial Court has not bothered to go through the contents of the F.I. R and other materials available on the record and has rejected the bail application in routine. He further argued that the prosecution story as narrated in the instant F.I.R is concocted, self-made and disbelievable and seriously doubtful. The alleged recovery is foisted upon the applicant/accused, as such, no recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant/accused. He further contended that prosecution case is highly doubtful, restful and requires further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. As complainant has not mentioned anything about the model of the alleged robbed mobile, sim lying therein, colour of the mobile and there is no description of the alleged robbed cash amount. He further contended that applicant/accused was arrested on 21-4-2011 and since then he is behind the bar. He further contended that complainant is the member of Ransom/ Bhatta collector and with the collusion of police official he extended threats to the applicant/accused, who carrying business at the bridge to collect the ransom and on refusal, the applicant/accused has involved in the false case. He also contended that there is gross violation of the mandatory provision of section 103, Cr.P.C. He also contended that the offence does not come within the. Prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. He prays that the applicant/accused may be admitted to bail. He has relied upon. The case of Naveed Ahmed v. The State 2007 YLR 114.
4. ' Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi learned, A.P.G. Has opposed to the gram of bail application on the ground that the applicant/accused was arrested on the spot and recovery was effected from his possession.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, learned A.P.-G. For the State. . It is an admitted position that the incident had taken plate on 21-4-2011 at 1600 hours, F.I.R has been lodged promptly at 1700 hours and there is no delay in lodging of F.I.R. It is also an admitted position that the applicant/accused was arrested at the spot and robbed property was recovered from his possession. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant/accused that the offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, it has been held time and again by our superior judiciary that if any offence, although not falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Would simply not justify the grant of relief of bail, as deeper appreciation of material available on record could not be done while deciding bail application.
6. ' It is admitted fact that the rampant law and order situation prevailing in the city including Super Normal hike in crime rate, such kind of crimes are directed against the society at large and strictly required to be curbed and if accused persons would be released on bail within a such short span of time they certainly will take the law lightly. In my view a prima facie case has been made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged offence. The applicant/accused has also failed to make out any case for further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
7. The above are the reasons of earlier short order dated 13-12-2011 hereby the bail application was dismissed.
8. ' Needless to mention that the above Observations are only tentative in nature and should not influence the trial Court in arriving at a just and fair decision, based on the evidence to be adduced at trial.
9. Bail rejected.