KHALID PAUL KHADAJA, J, On 29.6.1993 at Police Station Raja Jang. Kasur a case under Section 392 PPC arid Section 17 of the Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered at the instance of Talooq Masih complainant against Ramzan, Faqiria, Din Muhammad and Usman accused. It was alleged that on the night between the 11th and 12th of June, 1993 the aforementioned accused while armed with fire arms and a sola came to the nursery where the complainant was serving as a Chowkidar. They forcibly deprived him of his gun, four live cartridges and a sum of Rs.500/-. One of the accused namely Usman inflicted a sola blow on his left upper arm.
2. Ramzan accused, petitioner herein, who was arrested on 5.7.1993 has applied for his bail.
3. I have heard the parties learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that Section 17 of the Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was not attracted to the present case because the Nisab in the present case was not enough to constitute the offence of Harabah. He however, did not dispute that under Section 20 of the aforementioned Ordinance the offence applicable in the present case would he under Section 392 PPC which is punishable with ten years rigorous imprisonment and thus falls within the prohibitory clause ol Section 497 Cr.P.C.
5. Statements of Talooqa Masih complainant and Muhammad Sharif PW sufficiently connect the petitioner with the offence charged against him. Learned counsel has placed on record a photostat copy of an affidavit purported to have been sworn by Talooqa Masih complainant and an affidavit which Muhammad Sharif PW had allegedly sworn. The deponents of the aforesaid affidavits have staled that no such occurrence had taken place and that their thumb-impressions were taken on blank papers. None of the said PWs has been produced in Court to verify the said affidavits. 1, therefore, do not propose to place any reliance on the said affidavits.
6. As there is sufficient material on record to connect the petitioner with the offence charged against him he is not entitled to the concession of bail. His bail application is dismissed.