1. Applicant Kaleem Ahmad son of Naseem Ahmad is arrested in crime No.215 of 1993 under sections '147, 148, 149, 435, 324, P.P.C. And section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Masroor A.I at Police Station Ibrahim Haideri, Karachi on 20-8-1993 at 5.40 p.m. The challan against applicant Kaleem Ahmad and co-accused Muhammad Nafees is submitted in the Special Court-I (STA), Karachi. Two more accused namely Pervaiz and Abdul Haleem Qureshi are shown in the challan as absconders. Bail application moved on behalf of the applicant in the trial Court was dismissed on 25-9-1994. Complainant Masroor A.I, who lodged the F.I.R., stated that on the day of incident at about 4-30 p.m., he alongwith his friends Tahzeeb Khan, Touheed and Abdul Rehman were gong towards the city in the car of their friend.
2. When they reached near main road of Korangi, about 10-12 boys of M.Q.M. (Altaf Group) stopped the car. From amongst the accused, Pervaiz and Guddo were armed with Klashnikovs while Rafique with a T.T. Pistol. As soon as the complainant and his companion tried to flee, the accused opened fire resulting into injuries to complainant, Masroor A.I and Tauheed. The last line of the F.I.R. Shows that motorcycle No.KAK-5347 in the name of Shamim was also robbed by the culprits. Applicant Kaleem Ahmad was arrested on 21-8-1993 i.e. On the next day of the report and as stated nothing was recovered from him.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ashique Raza, for the State. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that neither the name of applicant appears in the F.I.R. Nor he is attributed any specific role during the commission of the offence and the only evidence against him has seemingly come through the statements of P.Ws. A. Rehman, Tahzeeb and Touheed, which were recorded on 21-8-1993 and 23-8-1993 respectively. It is also contended that the applicant has been in custody for about 14 months and the trial is not commenced and such delay in the conclusion of trial is not occasioned by any act or omission on the part of the applicant. ` Mr. Ashique Raza, learned counsel appearing for the State, has opposed this application and has contended that from the statements of three witnesses examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. The involvement of the applicant in the case was conclusively established and he was arrested only after such evidence came on record during investigation. He has also argued - that the complainant, P.Ws. Tahzeeb Khan and Touheed received injuries during the incident but when asked to state as to the nature of the injuries sustained by the witnesses, the learned Advocate was unable to point out if the above named witnesses were ever referred for treatment or certificate.
4. We find from the perusal of the F.I.R. That the name of the applicant does not appear nor he is shown to have acted in furtherance of the common intention of all accused: Applicant is in custody as an under trial prisoner for more than 14 months and the conclusion of trial is not in immediate sight. There is nothing on record to indicate if any one of the prosecution witnesses suffered injuries at the hands of the culprits who had waylaid the complainant and his companion while they were going in the car or any robbery was committed. The case of the applicant, in the circumstances, requires further inquiry, as there no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offences, with which he is charged, or that such offences would be covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. We are, therefore, inclined to grant bail to the applicant who shall be so released if he furnishes one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court provided he is not required in any other case.