1. ' This is a bail application moved on behalf of applicant Mukhtiar Ahmed, who is facing trial under Article 17(3) (Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 16-6-1988 at about 8-00 p.m. The complainant Muhammad Ayub resident of Officer Flats Shahrah-e-Faisal had gone to the shop of photographer along with his wife and parked his Car No, PRH-7090 in front of the shop and he himself went inside the shop when a person whose name was subsequently disclosed as Mukhtiar the present applicant opened the front door of the car in which the complainant's wife Mst. Dr. Abida Ayub was sitting. He took out dagger and threatening the complainant's wife asked her to get down from the car. It is a case of complainant that his wife got down from the car and raised alarm. On hearing the cries A.S.I. Maqbool Ahmed along with a police constable was attracted and the applicant tried to start the car but he did not succeed and with the help of other, the present applicant was apprehended on the spot and was taken to the P.S. Where an F.I.R. Was lodged. Mr. Kazi A. Ghani the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has contended that:
(a) that the prosecution story is improbable.
(b) it is contended that the applicant was a private servant of the complainant and had left the service due to misbehaviour of the complainant and his wife. He was called by the complainant and insisted to rejoin the service but the applicant refused. Hence the case has been fabricated against brim.
2. ' Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.-G. Has vehemently opposed the bail application and has contended that there are independent witnesses who have supported the prosecution allegations.
3. There is evidence of independent P.Ws. Rehman Shah and Kamaluddin which is available on the record in the investigation papers supporting the prosecution allegations. No enmity has been alleged against the private persons or the police officers who are the witnesses of the alleged incident and here is evidence of Mst. Dr. Abida Ayub the wife of the complainant and the applicant was arrested on the spot and also there is evidence of recovery of the dagger.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel. In my view contentions raised by the applicant's counsel involve appreciation of evidence and I am not inclined to consider the plea raised at this stage. When the case has not yet started and in absence of any enmity alleged against independent witnesses the material is available on record collected during the investigation which cannot be adjudged or appreciated. I also do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case there exists clement of further enquiry. The incident admittedly occurred 'on Allama Iqbal Road, which is commercial area.
5. There is evidence of independent witnesses in whose presence the applicant was apprehended on the spot. Taking into consideration the arguments and having gone through the impugned order, dated 4-8-1988 whereby the plea of bail was declined by Vth Additional Sessions Judge (East)
6. Karachi, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
7. ' Consequently, I am not-inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant at this stage in view of the material on the record in support of the charge and the allegation is of serious nature which has become common, these days. For the above reasons I find no merit in this application which is dismissed.
8. ' Criminal Bail Application No, 885 of 1988 is accordingly dismissed.