1. ' The facts leading to present application for bail are that applicants/ accused Farid Khan and Hashmat are facing trial under sections 382 and 34, P.P.C. Read with section 20 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 79 in Sessions Case No,409 of 1997 before learned Sessions Judge Malir at Karachi, arising out of the F.I.R. No,168 of 1997 dated 26-7-1997 of Police Station Gulzar-e-Hijri, District Malir, Karachi.
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by one Muhammad Sabir are reproduced below: "I am residing at the aforesaid address. About 2 months back I had come to Karachi to work as labourer. Prior to this, I had worked as labourer at different places. Today i,e, on 26-7-1997 while I was going towards Al-Asif Square Bus Stop to fetch Bus for going to Punjab and at about 8-20. p.m., when I reached Bukhari Mosque at Al-Asif Square, three persons came, who were armed with pistols. They aimed arms at me and took out Rs,4200 from my pocket. I raised hue and cry whereupon one vehicle carrying police personnel reached. I caught hold of one person and on my pointation, the remaining two were arrested by the police. Police secured three Pistols. One from each accused alongwith twelve rounds. They have either thrown away my money or they have handed over the same to some companions of theirs. Those three accused disclosed their names as (1) Farid son of Muhammad Alam, (2) Hashmat son of Juma Gul, (3) Abdullah son of Habibullah.
3. One police official who disclosed his name as Ahsan Sahib obtained my thumb impression on a writing after completing the codal formalities at spot. Now I have come alongwith police party and the three accused. I complain that aforesaid three persons at the point of arms have robbed me of my Rs,4,200. I lodge report. Investigation be made. The contents of report are correct."
4. ' Applicants/accused applied for bail before the Trial Court but the same was refused by impugned order dated 19-1-1998.
5. ' Mr. Abdul Karim Khan learned counsel for the applicant/accused has contended that number of robbed currency notes are not given in the F.I.R. Nor any description of their denomination has been shown therein, but the same has been shown- only in the memo of recovery; that the recovery is after 3 days of the incident at the pointation of accused from a garbage dump which is a public place therefore the same cannot be relied upon; that only one private person is Mashir of recovery and another Mashir is police constable. It is, therefore, contended that the recovery was made in disregard of provisions, of section 103, Cr.P.C. And cannot be believed and this has caused big dent in the prosecution case, which washes the entire prosecution story. Moreover, case is outcome of enmity, therefore applicants/accused are entitled to bail.
6. ' Mr. Ashiq Hussain Mehar, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and he has contended that no document has been produced to show or suggest that parties are on enimical terms, that the accused were apprehended on the spot with fire arms and ammunition after the act of robbery was complete and at their instance recovery of cash has been effected.
7. Under these circumstances accused are not entitled to bail.
8. ' I have considered the arguments of Mr. Abdul Karim Khan, learned counsel for the applicants/accused and Mr. Ashiq Hussain Mehar, learned counsel for the State and I have also perused the record.
9. The applicants/accused were, admittedly, apprehended on the spot after A committing the offence of robbery, and one unlicensed .30 bore pistol and four live cartridges were recovered from the possession of applicant/accused Farid Khan and one unlicensed .30 bore pistol and 5 cartridges were recovered from the possession of applicant/accused Hashmat at the spot which were aimed and pointed at the complainant while committing robbery. The applicants/accused robbed the complainant and deprived him of earnings of his hard labour which he was taking away to his village. The place i,e, garbage dump wherefrom the recovery of cash belonging to complainant was made, was in exclusive knowledge of the accused party and they voluntarily led the police and produced the same in presence of two Mashirs, out of them one is a private person against whom no animus has been suggested. Looking to the facts and peculiar circumstances of case primk facie no violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is made out at this stage. Merely because recovery is effected from a public place it cannot be discarded. The evidence of a police man also cannot be ignored at this stage as a police man is as good witness as any other person until and unless evidence is brought on record to disbelieve him. So far as non-mention of the numbers of currency notes and detail of denomination thereof is concerned, no one remembers or keeps a note of the numbers of currency notes with himself and it is not necessary that detail of denomination of each and every currency note must be given in the F.I.R. The Mashirnama of recovery contains all requisite details. There is no documentary or other proof regarding enmity which is suggested.
10. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the applicants/accused are not entitled to bail and, consequently, their bail application stands dismissed.
11. ' The observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and they shall not in any way influence trial Court while finally disposing of the case. Which needless to say will be decided upon the final evaluation of evidence brought on record. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.