1. ' ANWAR HUSSAIN, J.---Through this Application, the Applicant seeks post arrest bail after rejection of his Bail Application vide Order dated 11.5.2016 passed by the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi (East), in Crime No,371 of 2016 under Sections 392/ 398/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station KIA, Karachi, East.
2. ' The case of the prosecution is that on 17.4.2016, while the complainant was present with his friends namely Khawar and M. Naved at the corner of bridge in Korangi Industrial Area, two boys on one motorcycle came to them; the boy riding the motorcycle pointed his gun towards them and the other boy sitting behind snatched from the complainant his mobile phone and some cash of Rs,1,380/- from the pocket of Khawar; they made hue and cry and got the control of one boy, while the other boy made his escape good. People gathered there and overpowered the Applicant. In the meanwhile, one Police Mobile reached there and arrested the Applicant, who disclosed his name as Syed Abid Hussain Shah (Applicant) and of his companion as Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah. On his bodily search, only the mobile phone of the complainant was recovered from the pocket of the Applicant. After investigation, the Applicant has been challaned under Section 498, P. P.0 .
3. ' I have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant as also the learned A.P.G for the State.
4. ' Learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further contends that the alleged recovery of Rs,1,380/- was not made from the Applicant so also no weapon was recovered from the possession of the Applicant. He thus prays that the applicant be granted post-arrest bail. The Applicant's counsel relied upon the cases reported in 2007 YLR 1144 [Karachi] (Ali Ahmed v. The State) and 2006 PCr.LJ 1628 [Karachi] (Asif Raza v. The State).
5. ' As against above, learned A.P.G for the State contends that the Applicant was arrested on spot and the robbed mobile was recovered from the Applicant on spot and as such the Applicant is not entitled for the concession of bail.
6. I have given due consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Applicant as also the A.P.G. For the State. Since the allegation against the Applicant is that he has robbed the complainant of his Mobile Phone and amount of Rs,1,380/- at the time of commission of offence; and the Applicant was arrested on spot, but only the Mobile Phone was recovered and not the cash from the Applicant and even otherwise no weapon was also recovered from the Applicant, which all make the Applicant's case as case of further inquiry. Moreover, the alleged offence does not fall within the definition of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. ' In view of the above, the Applicant is admitted on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000/- and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.