1. ' The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicant/accused Shaukat Ali is facing trial in Sessions Case bearing No,110 of 1998 before Sessions Judge, Hyderabad arising out of F.I.R. No,8 of 1998 of Police Station Hussainabad under section 17(2) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The contents of F.I.R., lodged by complainant Muhammad Yahya on 11-2-1998, are as under:- "Complaint is that I reside at the abovementioned address and I am contractor. Today on 11-2- 1998, I drawnRs,50,000 from Muslim Commercial Bank, Fataz Hotel Branch, and after keeping the same in my pocket was coming on my motorcycle No,HDM.4181 towards Latifabad for the purpose of purchasing iron and cement. When at about 10.45 a.m. Reached at Auto Bhan Road near Indus Petrol Pump one red colour motor-cycle came on which 3 young boys were boarded who put me on the side and asked me to stop the motor-cycle on which I stopped the motor-cycle and those persons also stopped their motor-cycle by the side. Three of them suddenly took out pistols from their fold and pointed straight towards me and directed me to take out the money and same be handed over to them on which I replied that I will not give whereupon all the three tried to rob me on which I protested. In the meantime from the other side of the same road one vehicle of Rangers was coming who on seeing the altercation with them stopped the vehicle and came running towards us and the accused persons, on seeing the Rangers fired with pistols at them and in reply and defence Rangers also fired at them. Due to the firing one accused became injured and the rest of the 2 made their escape good in a car which was standing there towards Latifabad. Thereafter, I went to the Rangers and narrated them above said story. Thereafter, the Rangers enquired about the names from the injured person who disclosed his name to be Shaukat Ali son of Mohib Ali Mughal resident of Liyari, Karachi, and the pistol which was in his hand was also taken in custody by them which was checked and found loaded with 2 bullets of 30 bore and was in working condition. The accused was enquired about the licence who disclosed that it is without licence. Due to injured condition of the accused the Rangers took him and the motor-cycle of red colour and ammunition and went towards hospital and directed me to go to the police station and register a case. Thereafter, I went to my house and narrated the incident with my brothery people namely Muhammad Hanif son of Haji Abdul Rehman and (2) Muhammad Yousuf son of Haji Abdullah. Now I have come and report that accused Shaukat Ali alongwith his 2 companions had tried to rob me ofRs,50,000 and due to intervention of the Rangers they failed. I have seen the apprehended accused and the accused who made their escape good clearly and will identify them on seeing.
2. Complaint is that justice be done."
3. ' Applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but the same was rejected by impugned order dated 25-3-1998.
4. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that the persecution story is false, absurd and improbable and there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant/accused is connected with the commission of the offence; that the F.I.R. Is delayed by 4.45 hours whereas distance of scene of offence from police station is one kilometer; that the offence alleged is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten (10) years; that in fact on the day of incident applicant/accused alighted from the bus at Hyderabad and while he was going, the Rangers started him and started his search whereupon there was altercation between him and the Rangers personnel. The Rangers got annoyed and fired upon the applicant/accused and they in order to save their own skin managed with police and implicated him in the present case; that, therefore, applicant/accused is entitled to bail.
5. ' Mr. Anwar Ansari, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail plea and has contended that the acts of robbery and dacoity are rampant; that the applicant/accused is prima facie guilty for Harabah, which is punishable under section 17(2) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979; that the plea that there was exchange of hot words with Rangers personnel over his personal search, therefore, they caused him fire-arm injuries and implicated him in this case is afterthought and baseless; that the delay in lodging F.I.R. Has been properly explained, therefore, applicant/accused is not entitled to bail.
6. ' I have considered the arguments of Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, learned counsel for the applicant/accused and Mr. Anwar Ansari, learned counsel for the State. I have also perused the material on record and impugned order.
7. The applicant/accused was admittedly apprehended on the spot. He alongwith his co-associates at the point of fire-arm by putting the complainant in fear of death made an attempt to take away the cash amount ofRs,50,000, which he had drawn from the Bank and it was sheer luck of the complainant that on arrival of Rangers personnel the attempt of applicant/accused and his companions was foiled. The injuries on the person of applicant/accused suggests his complicity in the commission of crime as it is the case of prosecution that there was an encounter between the Rangers and applicants/accused party in which he received the injuries. The complainant is a private person resident of Hyderabad and applicant/accused is resident of Karachi and no material has been placed on the record to show that complainant is connected with the Rangers personnel in any way. The incident occurred in broad daylight in the heart of Hyderabad town. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has been properly explained by the complainant as according to him after the incident he first went to his relatives and informed them and, thereafter, he went to police station where he lodged the F.I.R. Moreover, the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused in my view tantamount to deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence, which is not permissible under law at the stage of bail. The law on this aspect of the matter is well- settled, as for the grant or refusal of bail only tentative assessment is to be made. Prima facie, there are reasonable grounds to believe that applicant/accused is guilty of the offence of Harabah and C his case is covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is not entitled to bail. Consequently, I see no merit in the bail application, which is accordingly dismissed.
8. ' The observations made herein above are of tentative nature and the trial Court will not be influenced thereby in any way at the time of final decision of the case and will be free to conclude and arrive at its own findings after evidence is recorded in the case.