1. ' SHAHAB SARKI, J.---The applicant has come to this Court after the Bail Application moved by him before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi, South, in FIR No,219/2014, under sections 392, 324, 353, 34, P.P.C. At Police Station Preedy, Karachi was dismissed vide order, dated 24-4-2014.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case as stated in the FIR are that the complainant Shaukat Ali was proceeding to the Mobile Market to repair his mobile set and when he reached behind St. View Church, two persons, who were on Motorcycle, suddenly came out and one of them took out his pistol and snatched the Mobile Set Nokia Company-1600 and 6303 and cash Rs,600. Meanwhile, a Police Mobile reached at the spot and the said Police Mobile hit Motorcycle of the accused persons.
3. In such a situation, one of the co-accused managed to escape, while the present applicant was caught hold of by Police and the Pistol and looted articles were also recovered from him.
4. Thereafter, challan has been submitted on 15-4-2014, in which one private person and three Police Personnel have been mentioned as witnesses.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that this is a case of further enquiry, because the Police has arrested the present applicant and the co-accused ran away, who has so far not been arrested, which shows the mala fide of Police. He has further argued that this is a case of ineffective firing and the looted articles have been foisted upon the present applicant. In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Shehzore v. The State (2006 YLR 3167), Suleman v. The State (2004 YLR 104), Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) and Muhammad Hussain v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 488).
6. ' On the other hand, Mr. Abrar Ali Khichi, learned APG has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant, as according to him, the present applicant has been arrested on the spot with looted articles as well as crime weapon was also recovered from his possession. He has further argued that the complainant is a private person and there was no relation with the complainant and the applicant so that question of enmity between the parties does not arise.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APG as well as the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. In the instant case, the applicant was arrested at the spot and looted articles were recovered from him. There was a private complainant, who is an eye-witness. There is no enmity alleged with the said private person or with the Police. The crime weapon has also been recovered from the possession of the applicant and there has been no delay in lodging of the FIR. In the City like Karachi these types of cases have been increasing day by day and daily many innocent persons are being deprived of their valuables. Due to fear of life, threats and lack of interest by Police of the City of Karachi, the private persons are avoiding to become complainant, and if in some cases, private persons become complainant, they are not coming to the Court for evidence, which goes to benefit the accused persons and creates doubt in the case. The cases in which the accused persons are arrested and looted articles are recovered, these type of cases should be left for the trial Court to adjudicate and at bail stage tentative assessment is to be made and the present applicant seems to be connected directly in the instant, crime. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the Police malafidely has not arrested the co-accused. If this Court has assumed that the Police malafidely not arrested the co-accused, the bad intention of Police does not benefit the present applicant, as arrest of the co-accused would not make positive impact for release of the present applicant on bail. The case-law cited by- the learned counsel for the applicant are quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case and are not applicable in the instant case, details of which are as under:-- ' Suleman v. The State (2004 YLR 104). This is case of ineffective firing. In this case there was a raid by Police for recovery of narcotics and there was retaliatory firing between the accused persons and the Police and no one was injured. This case is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. ' Muhammad Hussain v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 488). He has emphasized of right of fair trial. There is no cavil that the right of fair trial is the fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, but in this case, the accused was in Jail for about three years and since there was no progress, he was admitted on bail and the instant case is also distinguishable from the present case.
10. ' Shehzore v. The State (2006 YLR 3167). This is case of alternate punishment being three years in this case. There is also no cavil with this position, but each and every case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.
11. ' Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). In this case, there are general principles for grant of pre- arrest and post arrest bail as well as bails falling in the prohibitory and non-prohibitory clauses.
12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am not impressed with the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the case-law cited by him are quite distinguishable with the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the Bail Application moved by the applicant is hereby dismissed: ' Before parting with the order, directions are given to the learned trial Court to examine material witnesses, specially the private person Shaukat Ali, within a period of four weeks from receipt of this order, whereafter the applicant would be at liberty to move a fresh bail application before the learned trial Court, if so advised.