KAMRAN AHMED Versus State

ORDER

M. BILAL KHAN, J.-- -Kamran Ahmad son of Habib Ahmad Ali, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.585, dated 31-8-2005, registered at Police Station Satellite Town, Sargodha for an offence under section 392, Cr.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution as it unfurled in the F.I.R. registered at the instance of Muhammad Sarwar son of Muhammad Sharif (complainant) was that he was employed as a driver with one Muhammad Nasrullah son of Ch. Ghulam Ghaus. resident of Defence Housing Authority, Lahore Cantt.; his employer was having a white coloured car 2D bearing Registration No.1800-LXR on lease from Askari Bank and had sent his nephew Ansar son of Muhammad Rafiq, resident of Gulistan Colony, Faisalabad along with him to Sargodha from Sargodha, Faisalabad on 31-8-2005; at 3-45 p.m., when they had reached near the Bypass in the area of Chak No.51/North, all of a sudden four persons, who were identified by his companion emerged; they were Waseem Akhtar son of Sher Muhammad, Kamran son of Habib Ahmad Alvi (petitioner), Muhammad Zaheer son of Muhammad Fazal and Shahid Imran, son of Muhammad Ashraf; Muhammad Zaheer and Shahid Imran who were carrying pistols .30 bore, aimed their weapons towards them and signalled them to stop; they warned that if they tried to speed away, they would be killed, on which they stopped; as soon as they stopped, Muhammad Zaheer and Shahid Imran put their pistols on the temples of the complainant and Ansar, respectively, and demanded that the car be handed over to them; they were made to disembark from the car and Waseem Akhtar subjected him to a personal search and took out a cellular phone Sony Erricson as well as cash amount of Rs.800 forcibly, whereas Kamran (petitioner) searched Ansar and took out a pocket PC valued Rs.20,000 and a cash of Rs.2,000 from him; they were made to sit in the rear of the car at gunpoint with their hands and feet tied; at some distance they were made to get down from the car in the millet crop and warned that if they raised any noise they would be killed; they fled in their car, which is valued at rupees one million. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. had been recorded.

3. The petitioner had been arrested on 6-9-2005 and is in custody eversince. He applied for his post-arrest bail before the learned Court of Session at Sargodha, but his plea was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, vide order dated 26-1-2006. Hence, the instant petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by Ghulam Sarwar, A.S.-I.

5. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is one of further inquiry for the reason that according to the statement of Ansar P.W. recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. all the four accused were carrying fire-arms, whereas according to the F.I.R. only two of them were shown to have been armed with pistols and that it does not appeal to reason that the accused persons were roaming about in the same car displaying the original registration number six days after its recovery, relate to deeper appreciation of the material available on the record and do not advance the case of the petitioner for the grant of post-arrest bail, especially when there are serious allegations against him. The pocket computer had been recovered from the petitioner on 12-9-2006 and he had been duly identified during the transaction by a prosecution witness. The challan has already been submitted in the Court and charge has been framed. Likewise bail cannot be granted to an accused in a case attracting the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. when ample incriminating material is available against him prima facie connecting him with the crime imputed to him. There is no A merit in this petition. which is accordingly dismissed.

H.B.T./K-32/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.