1. ' The facts leading to the present application for bail are that the applicant Zamir son of Badaruddin Charm is facing trial in Special Case No,19 of 2000 before the learned Special Judge (S.T.A.) Court, Khairpur under sections 392/337-H(ii), 215 and 34, P.P.C. The case arose out of F.I.R.
2. No,14 of 2000 of Police Station Baberlq.
3. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed by the complainant Ghulam Shabir in the F.I.R., dated 30-1-2000 are reproduced hereinbelow:-- ' "Complaint is that on 27-11-1999, I, Muhammad Sharif son of Wadhal Kalhoro, Abdul Rehman son of Haji Abdul Ghani Kaloro, my brother Nazir Ahmed son of Haji Qadir Bux were watching, picture in Otaq on T.V. And V.C.R. At about 7-00 p.m. Four persons duly armed entered in Otaq. We identified them on the electricity light in Otaq, to be Zamir son of Badaruddin 2. Rashid son of Muhammad Paryal, both by Caste Channa, residents of Khair Muhammad Nizamani, Taluka Khairpur and two unidentified persons whose faces were open and we had clearly seen them. We can identify them if seen again. Out of them Zamir had kalashnikov, Rashid had gun and rest two unidentified accused had pistols. Zamir raised Halal and directed us not to move from the place, else they would murder/kill us. Due to fear we remained silent. The persons having pistols removed money from my pocket and from the pocket of my brother, and one Rado watch from the hand of Nazir Ahmed and also money from him. They robbed and removed the Seiko-5 watches and cash from Muhammad Sharif and Abdul Rehman. The two accused removed watch from my hand. The persons having pistols took T.V. And V.C.R. Went away towards Data Garden from Otaq making firing. We raised cries, on the fire reports and cries villagers came. We tracked the foot-prints on torch and lantern light and reached village Khair Muhammad Nizamani. We met with father of the accused i.e, Badaruddin Channa and Muhammad Paryal, and narrated them facts, and demanded our robbed property and accused. They sought time for some days: After 15 days, we again went to their village where Badaruddin Channa, Muhammad Paryal Channa and Allan son of Haji Motan met. We asked them for the return of property but they replied that the property has been taken away to far-off place. They recovered from me Rs,1,000 towards the expenses for the return of property. They kept us on false hopes, and did not return the property and usurped the amount of Rs,one thousand. Now I have come and lodge the report, that above accused have committed robbery while we were sitting in our Otaq, complain. Inquiry be made.
4. Details of robbed property of complainant.
(1) One T.V. Philips Co. 14" size black colour plastic body, valued Rs,12,,000.
(2) One V.C.R. National Co. 340NV, steel body, Serial No,B3KF 13345 valued Rs,8,000
(3) One watch Seiko-5, golden dial, and chain, Rs,1,500.
(4) Cash Rs,11,000 total Rs,32,500. Details of Robbed property of Nazir Ahmed.
(1) One Rado Watch golden chain, original value Rs,15,000.
(2) Cash Rs,4,000 total Rs,19,000 Details of robbed property of Muhammad Sharif.
(1) One watch Zeenat Co. Valued Rs,500.
(2) Cash Rs,700 total Rs,1,200 Details of property robbed from Abdul Rehman.
(1) One Seiko-5 watch valued Rs,1,500.
(2) Cash Rs,1,100 total Rs,2,600.
5. ' The applicant applied for bail before the trial Court but his bail plea was dismissed by impugned order, dated 30-6-2000.
6. ' I have heard Mr. Haji Shafi Muhammad learned counsel on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State. The latter opposes the bail plea of the applicant.
7. The perusal of material placed on record shows that the applicant on the fateful day duly armed with kalashnikov and his companions armed with lethal weapons, barged into the house of the complainant. At the gun-point they snatched the valuables. The weapon of offence i.e, kalashnikov and snatched T.V. Were recovered from the possession of applicant. The factum of robbery committed by the applicant with his companions is supported by three eye-witnesses in their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements. They have fully implicated the applicant as one of the culprit. The delay in the F.I.R. Has been properly explained. It is common practice that in such circumstances in the first instance people usually avoid to report the matter to police and try to get property restored. So far the contention that co-accused Badaruddin, Allan and Paryal were granted bail by the trial Court, therefore, applicant is also entitled to bail on the rule of consistency is misconceived. The copy of the order of the grant of bail to them has not been supplied. However, the case of those three accused is distinguishable.
8. ' The allegation against them is of receiving Rs,1,000 for expenses in connection with restoration of robbed property.
9. Moreover, for the purpose of bail only tentative assessment is to bet made and deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence is not warranted by law. Consequently the bail application stands dismissed.
10. ' The observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the learned trial Court shall not be influenced, thereby in any manner whatsoever and it shall be free to arrive at its own independent conclusion after the evidence is recorded in the matter.