MUHAMMAD ALI Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Applicant seeks bail in a case under sections 386, 39, 387, 506 and 34, P.P.C. read with section 6 of Pakistan Armed Forces (Acting in Aid of the Civil Power) Ordinance, 1998, which is pending trial before the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, South.

2. Facts briefly stated are that complainant Ilyas is having a shop of Audio cassettes named as Taj Cassettes House, bearing No. 138 on the Napier Road. About 3, 4 days before the lodging of F.I.R., he received a message on his Mobile phone that he should pay him Rs.25,000 else he would be killed. The complainant on 18-12-1998 again received a call on his Mobile phone at about 5-00 p.m., from the same person which displayed his Mobile phone number is 0300-203457. The complainant is said to have informed the caller that he had only Rs.17,000 with him and he was prepared to deliver the same, so, as per the instructions received by the complainant, he took the money at Thatta Bus Stop, Lea Market Chowk, in company of P.Ws. Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Farooq. The complainant while moving towards the pointed place noticed a Mobile Police party available near the said bus stop so he contacted Sub Inspector Shaukat Ali and apprised him of the facts.

3. The Sub-Inspector informed the complainant that he was alert alongwith his staff and whenever such a person comes to collect the money, the complainant would give them a signal. At about 7-00 p.m., oac person is alleged to have reached at the pointed place on a Motorcycle who asked the complainant to part with cash of Rs.17,000. The complainant then put his hand in his pocket in order to take out Rs.17,000, and while he was going to deliver the same to the Motorcyclist/applicant, when Sub-Inspector Shaukat Ali with his party arrived and arrested the applicant and secured the said amount from the applicant's possession, alongwith the Motorcycle.

4. The Police on the completion of investigation challaned the applicant showing one Shafique as absconding- accused who it is alleged was one of the accused. who had sent the applicant Muhammad Ali to receive the money from the complainant.

5. The application is pressed on the ground that the case was cooked up against the applicant as a result of conspiracy between the complainant and Sub Inspector Shaukat Ali. That the case against the applicant would fall under section 383, P.P.C. which is not punishable for more than three years that Mobile phone of the caller has not been secured from the applicant. Co-accused Taufique has been released by Police and that there are contradictions in the 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. statements of P.W. Ali Akbar and Muhammad Farooq and that Mashirs of recovery are relatives of the complainant.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant.

7. The complainant or the Sub-inspector Shaukat Ali are no where alleged to have any hostility against the applicant. The applicant was arrested on the spot with cash of Rs.17,000. There are no obvious reasons or any motive for false implication of the applicant. The offence is punishable with 10 years' imprisonment 'and fine, and the same falls within the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1)-of section 497, Cr.P.C. Such kind of offences have attained alarming dimensions and have seriously disturbed the- peace and tranquillity of citizens. Such act can possibly be termed as an act of terrorism. Accused of an offence of this nature would hardly deserve a concession of bail under the normal course.

Under the similar circumstances, even if the offence be one not falling under the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C., an accused cannot justifiably be allowed bail, as bail in offences not punishable for more than seven years, can neither be claimed as a matter of right nor there is an absolute rule of law that in such cases bail should always be granted. Placing reliance upon PLD 1997 Supreme Court page 545, 1 dismiss the bail application of the applicant.

Needless to mention that the observations made above are tentative in nature and are not intended to influence the mind of the learned trial Court during the trial of the case.

H.B.T /M-465/K

Bail application dismissed.