' AMER RAZA NAQVI J.---Through this bail application, applicants have sought bail in FIR No. 75/2014 under section 395/345, P.P.C. Police Station Korangi.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the allegation against the present applicants is that they committed dacoity in Tamir Micro Finance Bank, Korangi Branch along with other co- accused persons after taking hostage the guards and employees of the bank. FIR also disclosed snatching mobile phones and arms besides the cash looted.
3. Learned counsel argued that there are two identification parades in the matter, in one identification parade witnesses identified the accused persons, whereas, in the other identification parade witnesses failed to identify, therefore, learned counsel says besides pointing out said discrepancies that identification parade cannot be relied in the present case. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied on 1995 SCM R 127, 2013 YLR 208 and learned counsel says that bail cannot be withheld when there are contradictory identification parades. He also referred 2012 PCr.LJ 866, 2012 PCr.LJ 500, 2013 M LD 1225. Learned counsel further says that there is difference between first challan and the second challan, which amounts to concealment of the facts from the trial Court. Learned counsel has argued that in view of lot of contradictions in the prosecution story, case is doubtful and applicants are entitled to grant of bail. He has also referred objections filed by him before the learned Judicial Magistrate and observation of learned Judicial Magistrate available at pages 51 and 55 respectively. Learned counsel has argued the details of recovered articles have not been mentioned in 161 statements. He further says that Section 103, Cr.P.C. Has been violated and recovery has not been made in presence of independent witnesses. Learned counsel has also argued that prosecution has submitted criminal record of applicant No.1 but per learned counsel in view of the various case law previous criminal record, if not ended in conviction cannot be said to be material and bail cannot be withheld on that account. In this respect he has relied upon 2014 M LD 622 and 2011 SCM R 161. He has also submitted that it was held in 2006 YLR 3167 that lesser punishment should be considered while granting bail in any matter. Learned counsel while arguing his case and pointing out various discrepancies in the prosecution case has said that in fact I.O. Tried his level best to demolish the prosecution case. Learned counsel has referred 2012 PCr.LJ 1576 and 2010 YLR 140, both cases from Sindh jurisdiction and says that in the similar circumstances bail has been granted to the applicants.
4. In -reply to the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel appearing for the State has argued that there is ample evidence with the police, which is proposed to be produced in Court against the applicants and such evidence clearly shows that applicants are well connected with the offence. Moreover, the story is quite natural and there is no probability of any false implication of the applicants in the offence alleged in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. He has referred contents of Challan and has pointed out that at least five recoveries were made from the applicants at the time of arrest, which were snatched during the offence alleged.
Those recoveries are as follows:--
(i) One 30 bore Pistol bearing No.KAC-9644,
(ii) Mobile phone Samsung, Note-2, Model No.GTW-710 bearing IMEI No.354666051464451.
(iii) One 30 bore Pistol with rubbed number.
(iv) Mobile phone Q-Ell, bearing IMEI No.359417055442282.
(v) Nokia mobile 1280 bearing IMEI No.359307043520416.
5. Learned counsel for the State says that it cannot be a co-incident that police of a different jurisdiction from one, who registered the present FIR has recovered these items from the applicants at one time and therefore in such circumstances the possibility to false recovery should be ruled out. There is no enmity of the witnesses with the applicants. Learned counsel has also shown photographs of footage of CCTV at the time of commission of offence at the place of incident where accused Ejaz is clearly visible, whereas, remaining accused present have muffled their faces.
He has also shown a letter of Mars Security Guard Pvt. Ltd. Dated 15-4-2014, in which it is certified that pistol bearing No. KAC9644 recovered from the applicant Sajid belongs to such Security Company and this was snatched from P.W. Rab Nawaz, who has successfully identified the present applicants. This was the witness, who was posted at the time of incident at bank and a pistol was snatched from him. Learned counsel has also referred a letter dated 20-2-2014 through which license was produced showing that said pistol was owned by Mars Security Company. Learned counsel has referred case diary dated 30-4-2014 in which it is mentioned that Bank Officials were threatened while they were coming to Court for identification. Per learned counsel this was the reason that they failed to identify the applicants in the first set of identification parade. In reply to the contention of learned counsel for the applicant regarding non-mentioning of identity of articles recovered learned counsel for the State submitted that this is not a fact in the FIR those articles were mentioned, however, since the FIR was lodged without any delay, the detailed description is not expected to be mentioned in the FIR because that might have consumed time. He has further referred statements of S.I Ghulam Rasool Bhatti, Imran Shah recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. In which they have recorded details regarding identity of the articles recovered. Investigating Officer has also recorded 161 Statements of P.W. Sajid Hussain, Muhammad Nawaz, S. Fahat Umer, Imran Talib, Muhammad Humayon, Shabana, Iffat and Moamar Raza. He said that in these statements IMEI numbers of the mobile phones snatched were mentioned by the witnesses from whom mobiles have been snatched.
6. While considering bail application each and every case is distinguishable and applications are to be decided in the circumstances of each and every case. It is a settled principle that discrepancies in identification parade can be helpful for the applicants. It is also a fact that previous criminal record may not be treated against the applicants and every case is to be decided on its own merits. Deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be made at the bail stage as it might prejudice the case of any party. In the present facts and circumstances of the case the case relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants is distinguishable. Prosecution has been able to prima facie connect the applicants with the offence alleged. I agree with the learned counsel for the State that recovery of at least five items made from the applicants at one time connects the present applicants with the offence alleged, besides identification.
7. Per learned counsel for the State P.W. Haq Nawaz is the witness, who resisted the applicants to some extent, and was held hostage throughout the commission of offence and therefore, was natural witness and has successfully identified the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants to this extent is correct that investigation should have been, more efficient and discrepancies should have not happened in spite of that as a tentative assessment of the material, which prosecution proposed to produce before the Court show that prima facie applicants are involved in the offence. It is also mentioned in the challan that there was spy information on which police has gone 'to the place' where applicants came and they were arrested and recoveries mentioned above were 'recovered from them. The recoveries made are specific. The pistol was bearing a specific number in, one case and IMEI numbers of the mobile phones recovered were also specifically mentioned.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the humble opinion that applicants have failed to make out a case for grant of bail, which is accordingly dismissed. However, observations made in this order are purely of tentative nature and only for disposal of this application and trial Court should not be influenced while proceeding with the case from these observations.