MUHAMMAD ALI Versus THE STATE
ORDER
This order will dispose of two connected bail applications titled (Muhammad Ali v. State (Criminal Miscellaneous No.585‑B/BWP of 2002) and also said Umer etc. v. State (Criminal Miscellaneous No.598‑B/BWP of 2002). Both the petitions are based on F.I.R. No.26 of 2002 registered in Police Station City B‑Division, Rahimyar Khan. The F.I.R. was lodged by Mazhar Alam Baig, Manager, M.C.B, Shahi Road Branch, Rahimyar Khan to the effect that on 28‑1‑2002 around 9 a.m., he entered the Bank and placed the key of his car and also the key of Bank safe and his glasses on his table. Then he moved forward to shake hands with the staff of the Bank. At that time, out of the members of his staff, Tahir Hanif, Cashier, Sabir Ali, Guard, Sheikh Bashir Peon, Rashid Minhas, SMS Guard, Mehmood Hussain, Officer, Nisar Ahmed, Officer and Muhammad Akram, Officer were present. Suddenly five unknown persons equipped with fire‑arms i.e. revolvers and Mauzers entered the Bank. The ring‑leader was taller than the others while the remaining four had beards and were clad in Shalwar Qameez. They were Pathans and they spoke to each other in Pushto while they addressed them i.e. the Bank Staff in Urdu. They asked the Bank Staff to raise their hands up. By placing the revolver at the head of the Manager i.e. the complainant, they threatened to kill him and asked for the key of the strong‑room. In the meanwhile, their staff member Ishaque (who had the key with him) entered the Bank. The culprits threatened to kill him and snatched the key from him and tried to open the strong room but they did not succeed in doing so. The Manager told them that the other key was with another staff member and the strong room would be opened with the key which was in his possession. In the meantime, Muhammad Afzal, Officer entered the Bank and the culprits aforesaid snatched the key from him and then with the help of both the keys they opened the strong room and picked up from there an amount of Rs.9,12,868 and the Travellers cheques of the value of Rs.10,54,350. The numbers of the Travellers cheques i.e. the denomination and serial are mentioned in the F.I.R.). The culprits confined the Manager and other staff members in the two rooms. In the meanwhile, some customers/Khatadars entered the Bank culprits snatched different amounts from them as well. Then they fled away in his ‑ RNK‑44 which was of the value of Rs.2,20,000. As such the culprits were alleged to have committed the dacoity by show of fire‑arms
2. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
3. Admittedly none of the culprits were r previously known to the complainant or to other P. Ws.
4. The learned counsel for the peti tioner (Muhammad Ali) has argued that the recovery memo. dated 29‑1‑2002 is prior to the date of arrest of Muhammad Ali petitioner and the said recovery was also not incor porated in the 'Roznamcha' dated 29‑1‑2002. He has argued that no recovery whatsoever of the alleged stolen property was made from the petitioner and that his implication in this case was the result of an afterthought as he had lodged F.I.R. No.897 of 2002 in Police Station C‑Division, Rahim Yar Khan on 4‑3‑2002. He has argued that merely the assertion that Muhammad Ali petitioner was involved in a large number of cases previously does not indicate that he is involved in this case. He has asserted that the case of the petitioners is one of the further enquiry and is clearly distinguishable from his co‑accused. He has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security for his appearance before the Court. It was requested that Muhammad Ali petitioner against whom no convincing evidence is available with the prosecution be admitted to bail.
5. The learned counsel for Said Umer and Gul Muhammad petitioners has argued that actually both the said petitioners were arrested in case F.I.R. No.96 of 2002 by Police Station Cantt., Rawalpindi on the complaint of a Money Changer but were subsequently admitted to bail in the said case. However, they were later arrested in this case. He has argued that the petitioners are not specifically named in the F.I.R. nor any identification parade was ever held and that he Travellers cheques allegedly recovered from the petitioners i.e. Said Umer and Gul Muhammad were never snatched/looted during the occurrence and that the serial numbers of the cheques allegedly recovered from the petitioners were altogether different than those which had been snatched during this occurrence. He has argued that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners had committed a non‑bailable offence. It was requested by him that they may be admitted to bail.
6. So far as the recovery of the alleged stolen car of the complainant from Muhammad Ali petitioner is concerned, the same does not seem to be based on any sound 8 evidence. It is correct that Muhammad Ali I petitioner is involved in large number of I cases, yet the prosecution does not seem to, possess sufficient evidence against him in this case so far. He was arrested on 5‑4‑2002. It was alleged that Muhammad Ali petitioner was involved in at least 44 criminal cases but the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the bar that he had been acquitted in all those cases. He remained on physical remand with the Police but nothing out of the alleged stolen/looted property was recovered from him. The case to the extent of Muhammad Ali petitioner/accused is clearly one of the further enquiry and he is thus entitled to the concession of bail.
7. So far as Said Umer and Gul Muhammad petitioners are concerned, the alleged snatched/looted Travellers cheques were partly recovered from their possession. The members of the Bank staff may not have identified the petitioners namely Said Umar and Gul Muhammad yet the mere fact that the alleged stolen Travellers cheques and cash having been partly affected from the petitioners prima faice connets them with the offence and as such at this stage the petitioners i.e. Said Umer and Gul Muhammad are not entitled to the concession of bail.
8. In view of the position mentioned above, the bail application of Muhammad Ali petitioner is accepted and he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only). with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Rahim Yar Khan.
9. The bail application of Said Umer and Gul Muhammad petitioners, is however, dismissed.
Order accordingly
H.B.T./M‑1421/L