1. ' By this order I intend to dispose of Cr. B.A. 1174 of 2003, filed on behalf of applicant, Ghafoor, in a case bearing crime F.I.R. No.64 of 2003 of Police Station, Ibrahim Haidri, Karachi for offence under sections 394/34, P.P.C.
2. ' The bail plea of the applicant was dismissed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Malir at Karachi vide order dated 24-9-2003.
3. ' The prosecution story as enunciated in the F.I.R. Is that on 29-6-2002 at about 4-30 p.m. F.I.R. Was lodged at Police Station, Ibrahim Haidri in consequence of statement of complainant Muhammad Ibrahim, recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. At about 2-30 p.m. On the same day, while he was admitted in Emergency Ward of JPMC, Karachi. It is disclosed in the F.I.R. That on the eventful day at about 10-30 a.m. While he was passing on his Motorcycle from the graveyard of Juma Goth, suddenly one Rasheed (co-accused) appeared and after getting the complainant stopped tried to rob him on the point of a TT pistol and due to resistance of the complainant said Rasheed fired which hit him on his left thigh and he fell down. Meanwhile, Intizar Ali alias Babbo, Muhammad Azeem (co-accused) and Abdul Ghafoor (applicant herein) duly armed with TT pistols emerged out and fired upon the complainant. Thereafter, all of them snatched 'cash of Rs.72,000 from the complainant and fled away leaving the complainant injured. However, one Ali Nawaz took him to hospital where his statement was recorded and accordingly, F.I.R., as above, was registered.
4. ' The investigation followed and in due course the applicant was sent up to stand trial in the Court of law.
5. ' I have heard Mr. Nazir Sajan Allana, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Arshad Lodhi, learned Addl. A.G. And Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant.
6. ' It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case against the applicant is false who has been involved due to enmity in respect of property in Jumma Goth and Malice. It has also been contended that there is delay of six hours in lodging F.I.R. Although Police Station is hardly four and half K. Ms. Away from the place of incident and no plausible explanation has been furnished in respect of such delay. It has, also, been contended that perusal of contents of F.I.R. Reveals that applicant has not been assigned any specific role coupled with the fact that his name is mentioned as Ghafoor son of Khuda Bux although the present applicant is known as Ghafoor son of All Bux but Police with mala fide intention has involved the applicant in this case of false nature. It has, also, been contended that though the incident took place on main road and thickly-populated area in day hours but the complainant stated that he was in his house when he came in sense. He has relied upon the cases of Sarfraz v. The State 1981 PCr.LJ 1031 and Muhammad Shafi and another v. The State PLD 1968 Lahore 869 in support of his contentions.
7. ' Leaned Addl. A.G. Has vehemently objected to the grant of bail on the ground that the prosecution version is supported with the statements of not only complainant but two witnesses namely Ali Nawaz and Abdul Sattar and act of the applicant shows that he is connected with the motive part of the prosecution story.
8. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has contended that the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R. And the medical report corroborates the ocular version.
9. ' I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the respect parties and perused the record.
10. Perusal of contents of F.I.R. Reveals that the applicant alongwith three other co-accused snatched Rs.72,000 from the complainant after getting him injured by a fire-arm injury and this act done by the applicant with the collaboration of the three accused, that too on a main road; comes within the defmition of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., as the punishment is provided up to 14 years. Besides the contents of F.I.R. Not only do mention the name of the applicant but are also supported by two prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the offence, committed by the applicant, according to the facts, now-a days, has become common in the society. None of the citizens is feeling safe from these type of culprits.
11. ' In the circumstances, I- am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant, which is dismissed.
12. ' With this observation Cr. Bail Application No.1174 of 2003 stands disposed of. .