' The petitioner, Muhammad Ashfaq, is seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,243, dated 5-8-1997, registered at Police Station Airport, for the offence under section 402, P.P.C., registered at the instance of complainant/S.H.O. Police Station, Airport, Rawalpindi, for the occurrence of the same day in which the petitioner and four others were apprehended on the spot while sitting in a stolen taxi fully armed with an intention to commit dacoit.
2. The petitioner's application for the grant of bail has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, on 20-6-1998. The petitioner and his co-accused have been found guilty during the investigation and Chillan has been submitted against them in the trial Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State, and have also seen the file.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that allegedly the occurrence took place at 9-00 a.m. Whereas the report was lodged at 11-00 a.m. And the delay of two hours is not explained; the petitioners were apprehended from a busy place during day time and no public witness was associated at the time of apprehension and recoveries which makes the prosecution story doubtful; the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than eleven (11) months and even the commencement of trial is not in sight and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail because the offence, as alleged in the F.I.R., does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; and in the last, it has been submitted that merely the presence of five or more armed persons would not mean that they were armed for commission of dacoit and, therefore, the provisions of section 402, P.P.C. Are not attracted to the facts of the case. Reliance in this regard is placed on Sirajul Haq and 2 others v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 685 and Shameer and others v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1256.
' The contentions have been opposed by the learned counsel for the State and it has been submitted that the petitioner and his co-accused belong to different areas, are not related to each other and the only connection in between them is that they are members of a gang which is notorious for committing acuities and robberies and murders, as the petitioner's co-accused are involved in many such cases, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail. Even otherwise the petitioner, on the receipt of secret information, was apprehended on the spot along with his co-accused and all the accused were fully armed with unlicensed lethal weapons which were also recovered from them on the spot and furthermore, the taxi in which they were sitting was found to have been stolen/forcibly snatched from a taxi driver and at the time of his apprehension, the petitioner was sitting in the said taxi along with his co-accused.
5. The petitioner was apprehended along with his co-accused fully armed with unlicensed weapons and the co-accused Riaz etc. Are involved in many criminal cases of acuities and robberies and in these circumstances it cannot be said that petitioner has been falsely involved.
There is enough material available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence and as he is involved with the commission of a heinous offence, I am not inclined to grant him bail. The application is, therefore, dismissed.