MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE

ORDER

1. Respondent Dost Muhammad is being tried alongwith 7 others persons by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, in respect of offences under section 307/457/382/336/332/411/34, P. P. C.

2. The allegations against the accused and his companions are that they had attempted to commit theft of tyres from the West Wharf, Karachi, and were taking away the same in a pickup when their attempt was foiled by a police party headed by A. S. I. Zafar Ali.

3. One of the co-accused, namely P. C.' Muhammad Aslam, was refused bail by the learned Sessions Court. He accordingly applied for bail to this Court but his prayer was rejected vide my order dated 20th December, 1978.

4. I have heard Mr. Ghulam Ali Agha, who, appears for the State, and Mr. Turab Ahmed, Advocate the learned counsel for the respondent. There would appear to be 3 pieces of evidence against the respondent, namely that he was apprehended on the spot by the Police party, that he threw stones at P. C. Abdul Rehman, who thereby sustained injuries and that he attempted to assault A. S. I. Zafar Ali with a knife, which knife was secured from him when the Police party empowered him.

5. The learned trial Court has granted bail to respondent Dost Muhammad on the grounds that this respondent had sustained 8 injuries at the hands of the Police party and that the medical evidence did not support the version of the prosecution that the respondent had attacked with a knife, since none of the Police party had sustained injuries with a knife.

6. Mr. Turab Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent, further submitted that this respondent was not arrested within the restricted area of West Wharf but on the road. His contention was that the respondent was in fact a Dock worker who had gone for his work. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that the respondent is a Dock worker. No entry Card or certificate showing that he is a Dock worker has been produced. The incident is said to have taken place at 5-10 a.m. when it was unlikely for workers to be going to the Docks. Further, as already pointed out, there are 3 circumstances against the respondent, namely that he was apprehended on the spot, that according to the Police witnesses he had thrown stones due to which P. C. Abdul Rehman sus tained injuries and that finally he attempted to assault A. S. I. Zafar Ali with a knife but he was overpowered and the knife was secured from him. As regards the injuries on the person of the respondent, the F. I. R. itself explains that in attempting to capture the respondent injuries were caused to him. So far as the absence of the knife injuries on any of the Police party is concerned, the version in the F. I. R. is A that the respondent attempted to cause injuries with a knife to the A. S.I., but did not succeed, in causing injuries to any person.

7. Commission of theft from the Dock area in my opinion, is a serious offence and cannot be equated with ordinary thefts. In the circum stances, I do not consider that there has been a proper exercise of power by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in granting bail to the respondent I would accordingly set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, granting bail to the respondent, and remand him to custody,

8. Petition dismissed.