MRS. RASHIDA ASAD, J.--- Insaf, Waheed and Saeed Ahmed applicants have been booked in FIR Nos. 13 and 14 of 2019 under section 395, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Railway Landhi, Malir Karachi. They were denied bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Malir , Karachi vide single order dated 8.10.2019; hence these bail applications.
I intend to dispose of all the captioned bail applications through this single order as the same are bound by common thread.
2. Per FIR No.13/2019, on 19.08.2019, complainant Muhammad Javed Akhtar , was proceeding from Karachi to Multan through Shah Hussain Express via seat No.60 in bogie No.7. After 45 minutes of departure, when train stopped at some deserted place. Sudden ly three unknown armed persons having muffled faces entered into the bogie and got down the complainant where their three companions were also present. On the force of weapons they looted Rs.3,47,940/-, I-Phone and one Samsung J3 and ATM card of MCB, thereafter , they ran way .
3. Per FIR No. 14/2019, on 21.08.2019 at 11:00 p.m., complainant Ch. Muhammad Arshad, railway engine driver , along with his subordinate staff left Cantt. Station and at 1640 hours and had to stop at Bin Qasim due to some damage in head lights. Suddenly two unknown armed persons with muffled faces entered into the engine cabin and got down the complainant, where 08 other unknown persons with muffled faces were present. They snatched cash, mobile phones etc. from complainant, assistant driver Muhammad Saleem, wireman Fazil and Asghar Ali and ran away . Hence the FIR was lodged.
4. The learned advocate for the applicants have mainly contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated in these cases; that there is delay of one day in lodging of the FIRs; that no priva te person has been associated hence there is violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.; that applicants are not nominated in the FIR; the confession allegedly made by the accused before police is not admissible under the law; that the offence with which the applicants are charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, they pray that the applicants may be granted bail.
5. Conversely , learned Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant contending that the applicants are involved in heinous offences; that the applicants were apprehended during investigation and from their possession mobile phones using by them as well as robbed cash were also recovered; that no enmity of the complainants against the applicants is alleged; and, that the offence with which the applicants are charged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. He, therefore, prays that the bail applications may be dismissed.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned Assistant Attorney General and the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the material available on record.
7. Record reflects that I.O. obtained call data record of snatched mobile phones. Mobile phone snatched from complainant Javed Akhtar of FIR No. 13/ 2019 was being used with a SIM registered in the name of accused Muhammad Panah for six days and thereafter it was being used with SIM No.034706181 18 registered in the name of applicant Saeed Ahmed. Investigating Officer also obtained CDR of mobile phone snatched from passenger Muhammad Ismail which was being used with SIM No.03069130643 registered in the name of accused Rashid Ali and further it transpired that the said mobile phone was earlier being used by applicant Insaf Ali. Investigating Officer with the help of locater , arrested accused Asghar Ali on 06.09.2019 in Crime No.14/2019 and from his possession recovered snatched mobile phone of complainant of FIR No.14/ 2019. Investigating Officer also arrested applicant Saeed. Ahmed on the pointation of accused Asghar Ali and recovered another snatched Samsung Galaxy mobile phone of complainant. Applicant Saeed Ahmed also led the police to his residential room and produced robbed amount of Rs.4000 /-. Further , on 10.09.2019, accused Muhammad Panah was arrested on the pointation of accused Asghar Ali, who led the police to the residence of applicant Insaf Ali, where accused disclosed that he had handed over snatched mobile to applicant Waheed Ali. Police also arrested applicant Waheed Ali and from his possession recovered mobile phone with SIM No.03483699149 registered in the name of applicant Insaf Ali. Accused Waheed Ali led the police party to the residential room situated at Juma Goth from where, police arrested Rashid Ail and recovered snatched mobile phone of passenger Muhammad Ismail.
Thereafter , applicant Waheed Ali led the police to his residence and produced his share of robbed amount of Rs.18,000/- Learned counsel for the applicants did not deny the registration of SIMs in the names of the applicants.
Complainants have no inimical term with the applicants, which prima facie, shows the involvement of the applicants in these offences of heinous nature. The applicants have not alleged or proved any enmity or with the complainants. There is sufficient material available on record to connect the applicants with the commission of alleged offences. As far as the delay , if any, in lodging the FIRs is concerned, plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainants. Even otherwise, the delay itself is not sufficient to grant bail unless the same is supported by other circumstances. Reliance is placed upon the case reported as Mazhar lqbal v. The State and others (2010 SCMR 1 171), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under:- "No doubt, there is delay in lodging the FIR but the complainant has tried to explain such delay . However , the delay by itself is not sufficient to grant of bail unless the same is supported by other circumstances."
8. No proof has been brought on record by the applicants that FIRs have been delayed and lodged after due deliberation and consultation to involve the applicants in such heinous offences. As far as question of false implication is concerned, the same can be decided after recording of evidence and at bail stage only tentative assessment is required and no deeper appreciation is to be undertaken.
9. As observed above, sufficient eviden ce/material is available on record to connect the applicants with the commission of non-bailable offence, as such the cases of the applicants do not call for further inquiry . Accordingly , instant bail applications of the applicants are dismissed having no merit: These are the reasons for the short order announced on 06.03.2020.
10. Needless, to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of applicant on merits.