' The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicant/ accused Tanveer Ahmed is facing trial under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 392 and 34, P.P.C. In Sessions Case No,469 of 1997 before VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, (East) Karachi arising out of F.I.R. No,439 of 1997 of Police Station Tipu Sultan, Karachi East.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution cage, as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by one Najmul Hassan Khawaja are reproduced herein below:-- "I am residing on aforesaid address with my family members since last 7/8 months. I do business.
On 6-6-1997 at about 11 O'clock in the night we slept. During night while I was sleeping when at about 3-00 a.m. One person awakened me by shaking my arm. I saw three young persons, one person was aged about 25/26 years, height about 5'-6", whitish complexion, slim body, wearing blue Shalwar and shirt, another was of 21/22 years, whitish complexion, height about 5'-4", slim body, curly hairs, wearing brown Shalwar and shirt, third one was aged about 20 years, height 5'-4" slim body, whitish complexion, wearing brown color Shalwar and shirt. All the three had big daggers in their hands. One had also pistol which appeared to be artificial. They were standing by the side of my head. They signaled me to turn my face towards the wall. I acted accordingly. They tied my hands with clothes. Thereafter, they awakened my wife and tied her hands from the back.
They demanded ornaments and cash and also directed us not to raise hue and cry. They demanded the key of almirah and beauty box. My wife opened the beauty box and they took away the ornaments, cash and valuable household articles. (Complete detail is given in F.I.R.). Report is lodged. Investigation be made."
3. The applicant/accused applied for bail before the Trial Court but the same was refused by impugned order, dated 4-5-1998.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has contended that the description with regard to eminent features and of clothes worn by the culprits is not given in the F.I.R.; that the memo. Of identification test is not properly drawn; that the arrest and recovery is in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. As Mashirs of arrest and recovery are police men. He has filed copy of the deposition of informant recorded by Trial Court and urged that the evidence of informant/complainant is not consistent with the contents of the F.I.R., therefore, the case has become doubtful and applicant/accused is entitled to bail.
5. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Memon, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and he has contended that complete description of the eminent features and clothes etc. Worn by the culprits is given in the F.I.R. And memo. Of identification test was properly drawn; that the arrest and recovery is not in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. P.Ws. Have fully implicated the applicant/accused, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the impugned order and material placed on record.
7. The informant has given complete description of eminent features and clothes worn by the culprits in the F.I.R. Applicant/accused was picked up correctly by the P.Ws. In the identification parade and also by complainant/ informant when his evidence was recorded before the Trial Court. Recovery was made from the possession of applicant/accused. The contention that no private persons were made Mashirs of recovery is devoid of force. Looking towards the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, prima facie, no violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is made out at this stage. The evidence of a policeman also cannot be ignored at this stage as a policeman is as good a witness as any other person until and unless evidence is brought on record to disbelieve him. In this context I am fortified by the decisions of Honorable Supreme Court in case reported in PL1 1980 SC 446 and reported PLJ 1982 SC 79.
8. The arguments that the memo of identification was not properly drawn or contents of the F.I.R.
Are at variance with the deposition of informant/complainant, 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 assessm ent is to be made. Consequently, bail application stands dismissed.
9. The observations made hereinabove 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.