MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. The applicant Muhammad Akram is being tried for the offence under section 7 (3), Property Hudood Ordinance, 1979.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 17‑1‑1985 at 4.00 p.m. a robbery was committed in the jewellery shop at Meena Bazar Karimabad, Karachi. It is alleged that some culprits entered in the shop armed with sten‑gun and revolvers while others stood guard outside the gate. They fired shots due to which glasses were broken and owner of shop Mahmood also sustained injuries. The case was registered on the same day. Police arrested the applicant on 29‑1‑1984.

3. Mr. I.I. Suleman, learned counsel for the applicant Akram argued that identification marks of the culprits .who were standing outside were not given in the F.I.R. and no part has been assigned to applicant. He submits that crime weapon has not been recovered from Muhammad Akram and identification parade was held after four days of his arrest. He has submitted that number of the dummies were less than the requirement therefore identification parade is illegal. He has relied on case reported to KLR 1984 (Shariat) 145.

4. Mr. A. A. Muhammadally learned Asstt. A.G. has no objection to the grant of bail. He states that no identification marks of the present applicant were given in the F .I. R.

5. This is a case of robbery in the jewellery shop, situated in the Meena Bazar Karimabad, Karachi from where ornaments were taken away and owner of the shop namely, Mahmood sustained fire‑arm injury at the hands of the culprits. The allegation against the applicant is that he was amongst the culprits at the time of robbery and was standing A as guard. It cannot be said that no overt act is attributed to him. He has rightly been picked out in identification parade and no enemity has been alleged with the witnesses who identified him. It has been pointed out that robbed jewellery was also recovered from the applicant. This can be treated as corroborative piece of evidence. So far number of I dummy's is concerned it is too early to go into controversy and any observations at this stage in my view will prejudice the case of the prosecution. The trial Court can go into the details when evidence is recorded. At this stage it is suffice to say that at present prima facie B case of robbery is made out and this is not a fit case for bail. Application is dismissed.

6. M.Y.H Bail refused