1. ' Applicant Laiq Shah is facing trial in Sessions Case No,152 of 2002 in an offence under section 395, P.P.C. Of Police Station Jackson in F.I.R. No,162 of 2001.
2. ' Briefly stated the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Lodged by Rehmanullah is that he was running business of providing motorcycles on hire basis. On 10-10-2001 at about 10-15(?) he was sitting in front of his shop alongwith his friend Sarfraz Khan when six persons came there who were by face appearing to. Be Pathans. Out of them three were armed with pistols and the remaining three were empty-handed. They pointed out pistols to them and demanded the delivery of belongings which were available with them. Complainant and his friend due to fear delivered Rs,40,000 and Rs,5,000 respectively. The culprits had come on motorcycles. At the time of decamping, the complainant party apprehended one of the culprits who was sitting on the back side of one motorcycle. One .30 bore pistol with magazine of five rounds also fell on the ground which was taken in possession. The aforesaid person was identified by the complainant to be notorious criminal Laiq Shah of Tappo Gulshan Sikandarabad. The culprits challenged them to leave him, else they will be killed and during that scuffle Laiq Shah managed to escape. Muhallah people namely Abdul Wali and Saleem also reached there. The complainant took pistol and magazines and produced the same before police and lodged the F.I.R.
3. ' After registration of F.I.R., the case was sent up and at present it is pending trial in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West.
4. ' It is submitted by the learned counsel that case under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance has proceeded and the present applicant had not been identified by complainant Rehmanullah as well as his friend Sarfraz Khan in the Court. The copies of their depositions have been produced alongwith bail application: It is argued that since the complainant and eye-witness had not identified applicant in 13-D case, therefore, he deserves bail in this dacoity case. He further submitted that the accused is in custody .Since 24-10-2001 and the trial has not yet been concluded.
5. ' Mr. Mumtaz Ali Khan Deshmukh learned counsel appearing for State has opposed the bail plea of accused on the ground that accused is involved in dacoity case. He is desperate and dangerous criminal. He is involved in three other cases and does not deserve bail.
6. ' Perusal of record shows that name of accused is nominated in the F.I.R. He was captured by the complainant party but later on his companions got him released after threatening the complainant party. Three other cases are pending against him. Although, the complainant and P.W. Sarfraz have not identified accused in 13-D case but that does not mean that they would also not depose against him in this case. The F.I.R. Is signed by complainant Rehmanullah and in case he resiles from the contents thereof, the action can be initiated against him. He may or may not support this case against Laiq Shah cannot be said at this stage. The accused is involved in heinous case of dacoity which is covered by prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The cash amount of Rs,4,000 was recovered from his possession and ocular evidence as per the contents of F.I.R. Is available against him. The case has not yet proceed, therefore, at this stage the applicant does not deserve bail which is declined.
7. Bail declined.