1. ' Present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No,3 of 1999 registered with Police Station Veehar under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, 397, 357, 148 and 149, P.P.C. He has approached the trial Court for bail, but without success. Hence this application.
2. ' Name of the applicant alongwith co-accused appears in the F.I.R. And the complainant has been robbed of the golden ornaments valued at Rs,2,38,000 and he has been identified by the complainant M. Inayatualh Morio has argued that co-accused Riaz Abro alongwith K.K and Manthar Sangro have been granted bail. When asked as to why co-accused have been let off by police, learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Inayatullah Morio had not been able to point out the material on the basis of which police have let off the co-accused. However, he has prayed for grant of bail. He has placed reliance on 2000 PCr.LJ 719 and 1982 SCM R 955.
3. ' On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Memon, has opposed with contentions that his name appears in the F.I.R. He has been identified by the complainant and huge quantity of golden ornaments have been forcibly taken away by the accused on the point of gun and KKs and very serious offence has been committed by the applicant.
4. ' I have considered the arguments rendered by learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the material available on record. Admittedly, name of the applicant appears in the F.I.R.
5. And he along with co-accused has committed robbery in the house of complainant and has deprived him of golden ornaments valued at Rs,2,38,000. The police have let off the co-accused namely Riaz Abro and Manthar Sangro and the contention of the learned defence counsel that since police have placed them in Column No,2 and the present applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that report of police is binding on the Court. There is no hard and fast rule with regard to the binding of police opinion on the Court. Each case has got the peculiar circumstances. The law cited by learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable from the present case. Reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Din v. The State reported in 1998 SCM R 1 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has refused bail to the accused who was found innocent by three different Investigating Agencies and their case was falling within purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. But the bail has been refused by the Honourable Supreme Court on the ground that although three different Investigating Agencies have declared accused innocent but his name appeared in the F.I.R. With specific role and bail has been declined. In the present case name of the present applicant appears with specific role and he has indulged in a very serious offence and has deprived the complainant of golden ornaments valued at Rs,2,38,000 and prima facie, there is sufficient evidence against him and there is involvement of the present applicant in the crime. I do not see merit in the bail application and accordingly it is dismissed.