' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Applicant Muhammad Shakeel son of Habib-Ur-Rehman, seeks post arrest bail. In reply to crime No,65 of 2014, falling under section 395/34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Surjani Town, West-Karachi. Earlier applicant/accused had applied for post arrest bail in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West, which was dismissed vide order dated 14-3-2014, impugned hereinabove.
2. The sum and substance of the prosecution story as is envisaged in the FIR are that complainant Rehman Gul son of Pegham Shah lodged his report with Police Station Surjani Town, in verbatim, it is reproduced as follows:-- "I purchased Truck bearing No,L-4369, Maker Hino, Colour Black, on instalment basis and also I drive the same along-with Conductor Sohail. Yesterday i,e, 8-2-2014, I was busy , in loading Iron/Scrap at Lal Qua Godown Kanta, Northern Bypass, weighing about 20 tons and 50 kg, valuing at Rs.20/25 Lacs for going towards KPK and I depart then in the night at 10:30 hours when reached at Kati pahari, Northern Bypass over the upper portion of hill then my Truck became slow, then suddenly 10/15 persons, they were loaded with deadly weapons came in front of us and they on the pointation of arms taken out my Truck, out of them 3/4 persons told us to sat on the bushes and then stands over us by pointing weapons on us, while remaining persons taken out my truck along-with material. In the morning remaining 3/4 persons also escaped. I tried myself but could not succeeded and now I came to report after consultation, my claim is against the 10/15 unknown persons, who snatched my Truck along with material / scrap on the pointation of weapons."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police. He has further argued that FIR was delayed about 12 hours which was not plausibly explained by the complainant; name of the applicant does not transpire in the FIR, no any description or specific role is attributed to the applicant in the subject crime and not introduced in the FIR either by the complainant 'or by the PW-Sohail. He further argued that after arrest of the applicant, no identification parade was held before the concerned Magistrate through complainant and cleaner of the truck, neither the robbed property nor any incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further submits that some unknown persons robbed the vehicle loaded with iron scrap from the complainant, therefore, application of section 395, P.P.C. Cannot be placed in service against the applicant. Whereas; the recovery of robbed articles attracted, application of section 411, P.P.C., offence under section 411, P.P.C. Is punishable up to 3 years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr,P.C. He further argued that providing of section 395, P.P.C. In alternate punishment i,e, imprisonment for life or imprisonment not less than four years and more than ten years having been provided lesser sentence may be considered by the Court in the matter of bail. Learned counsel further contends that applicant was doing business of old scrap and due to business rivalry he has been booked in this case crime by the police. He further argued that recovery of robbed articles from the possession of applicant was not witnessed by any independent person and request for grant of bail.
' Learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance on the case reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 531, 2006 YLR 3167 and 2012 M LD 707.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.G. Opposes the grant of bail and contends that accused persons on the show of force of lethal weapons snatched truck loaded with iron scrap valued at Rs.20/25 Lac as the complainant and his cleaner made hostage and were released on the morning of 9th February, 2014, therefore, FIR was registered at 10/20 hours on the very same day, as such, the delay in reporting the matter to the police has been fully explained by the complainant, even otherwise the applicant cannot be benefited of the said delay due to non-mentioning the name of any of the culprit of the crime by the complainant. He further argued that on the very same date, at about 1200 hours present applicant was apprehended while driving the robbed truck loaded with iron scrap on pointation and in presence of the complainant. He further argued that no enmity shown by the applicant with the complainant or with the police; he has not filed any proof regarding foisting of robbed property. He further contended if for the time being it is accepted that application of section 395, P.P.C. Not attracted against the present applicant, even then, section 412, P.P.C. Would come in the field and is very much applicable, which is punishable with imprisonment of life or with RI for terms which may extended to 10 years and does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and the learned A.P.G. At length. It is an admitted position that the FIR was delayed approximately 12 hours but the complainant had furnished cogent reason in the said account i,e, Complainant and cleaner of the truck were made hostage from 2030 hours on 8th February, 2014 till morning of 9th February, 2014, even otherwise the applicant should not be benefited of the said delay due to non-mentioning the name of any of the culprit of the crime by the complainant. The memo of arrest of applicant dated 9-2-2014 indicates that at about 1200 hours at the pointation of complainant the robbed truck was halted at main road, Arab City Goth, Taisar Town, Surjani Karachi. Present applicant found to be driving the said truck at that time, was apprehended. Such arrest was not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant, even otherwise, he has not produced any documentary proof in respect of his claim that applicant is running iron scrap shop having business relation with the complainant. The complainant is not dealing with the business of iron scrap, he plying truck and transported the items to its destination as and when delivered to him by the owner of the said items, when the applicant was arrested on the pointation of the complainant no necessity has been arisen to arrange his identification test through the complainant before the concerned Magistrate. The crimes of the present nature became order of the day, so, many persons are being deprived of their valuable on show of weapons. Due to increase of crimes of present nature the peoples are facing hardship to live in peaceful atmosphere. It is an open secret that in like nature cases no private person of the area come forward to become witness due to risk of life at the hands of the culprits. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case, as such, cannot be helpful to the applicant.
6. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that applicant has not made out a case for grant of bail, therefore, bail application of the applicant is dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the matter and conclude it within the period of six months, after receipt of this order. The observations made herein are tentative in nature and will not prejudice merits of the case.
' The criminal bail application is disposed of.