1. SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.:- Through this application, the applicant Nadeem Akhtar seeks bail in FIR No. 238 of 2013, registered under section 392/34 PPC, at police station Ferozabad, Karachi.
2. Prosecution story as narrated in the FIR by complainant Sajid Hussain is that two persons one of them was armed with TT pistol, on gun point snatched mobile phone QE-6 and Rs.500/-. In the meanwhile police mobile of police station Ferozabad reached there and on commotion surrounded the culprits and caught hold of them.
3. It is alleged that Muhammad Zahid was holding 30 bore pistol with live bullets in magazine and a mobile phone QE-6, cash Rs. 500/- and mobile phone Nokia C2 has been recovered from his possession. It is alleged that from the possession of co-accused applicant Nadeem Akhtar son of Jala Javed Akhtar nothing was recovered. Mashirnama of recovery and arrest was prepared in presence of the complainant Sajid Hussain and PC Maqsood by duty officer SI Safdar Khan of Ferozabad police station. Bail application filed earlier was dismissed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) on 16.07.2013. Hence the instant bail application.
4. Learned counsel at the very outset submitted that nothing was recovered from the possession of applicant Nadeem Akhtar and that he has falsely been implicated in this case due to malafide of concerned police. Learned counsel further submitted that section 392 Cr.P.C. is not attracted to the applicant as neither he was holding any weapon nor incriminating article was recovered from his possession which shows that applicant was not having guilty intention to commit such offence. It is next contended that no independent person has been cited as witness of recovery except the complainant. Lastly, it is contended by learned counsel that challan has already been submitted and the applicant is no more required for further investigation particularly the complainant did not specifically assign any role t the applicant of commission of alleged offence. To support her contentions learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as MUHAMMAD ISMAIL V/S THE STATE (2009 M LD 30), KHALID @ KHADI V/S THE STATE (2002 M LD 1471), JAFAR HUSSAIN @ JOJO V/S THE STATE (2008 P.CR.L.J. 1444) AND MST. RIAZ BIBI V/S SHO POLICE STAITON SAHIRPIR (2002 P.CR.L.J.
5. 530).
6. Conversely, learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh admitted that no specific role in commission of crime has been assigned to the applicant but since his presence was shown there, hence he raise objection for grant of bail to the applicant.
7. Admittedly no specific role in commission of robbery/dacoity has been assigned to the applicant who was allegedly apprehended at the scene of occurrence and no incriminating articles including arm has been recovered from his possession, therefore, vicarious liability of the applicant is yet to be resolved by the trial court at the time of evidence. The case of the applicant falls within the ambit of further enquiry within the provisions of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. The applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and P.R.Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.