SAFEER AHMAD Versus State
ORDER
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.--- Through this application, applicant Safeer Ahmed has sought his release on bail in case re-The State v. Safeer Ahmed for offence under sections 397, 34, P.P.C. culminated from FIR No.849/2016 of Police Station K.I.A. Karachi, after his bail plea has been declined by the learned VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, by dismissing his bail application vide order dated 12.11.2016.
2. Briefly the facts of the case narrated in the subject FIR, lodged by complainant Mehnaz Qadri, are that on 03.10.2016, the complainant and his brother Faqeer Abdullah Qadri, while they were going to their home, at about 0200 hours (2:00 a.m.) when they reached at Sector 6-B, near C-29 Wagon Stop, three culprits came there on motorcycle No.KJK-7153 and on force of pistol snatched old MBO Mobile with charger and cash of Rs.700/- from complainant's brother Faqeer Abdullah Qadri. In the meanwhile the police of P.S.KIA, on patrolling, arrived there and apprehended all the three culprits, who disclosed their names as Kamran Munir, Safeer Ahmed and Ahsan Ali. On personal search of the apprehended culprits, unlicensed pistol with ammunitions, snatched mobile phone and cash of Rs.700/-, with Photostats of motorcycle's registration papers were recovered from their possession and then the apprehended accused and case property were brought at Police Station KIA where the above FIR was lodged.
3. The learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case by the police; that no independent person has been shown as witness in the FIR; that the case against the applicant is doubtful; that no recovery of looted property was made from the possession of the applicant; that the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and, that the applicant at the time of alleged offence was aged of 17 years and he remained in custody since 03.10.2016, therefore, he is entitled to the grant of bail under section 10 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. He, therefore, prays that the applicant may be granted bail. He has placed his reliance on the cases of Sher Shah v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 1809), Siraj Din v. Saghir-ud-Din alias Goga and another (1970 SCMR 30), Khurram Shahzad v. The State (2004 MLD 1295), Muhammad Danish v. The State (2006 YLR 824), Ali Ahmed v. The State (2007 YLR 1144) and Ghulam Mustafa v. The State and others (2011 SCMR 2002).
4. Conversely, learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant, contending that the applicant is involved in various cases of heinous offences; that the applicant was apprehended along with his two accomplices at the spot; that recovery of snatched mobile phone, cash etc. and crime with live bullets were recovered from them; that no enmity of the complainant against the applicant is alleged; that the offence with which the applicant is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. She, therefore, prays that the bail application may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh for the State and have also gone through the material available on record with the assistance of learned A.P.G.
6. Record reflects that the name of the applicant finds place in the FIR; the applicant and his two accomplices duly armed came on a motorcycle and allegedly snatched cash and mobile phone from complainant's brother Faqeer Abdullah Qadri on gun point; a police party, on patrolling, luckily arrived at the place of incident, and apprehended all the three culprits including the applicant Safeer Ahmed and recovered snatched mobile, looted money and crime weapon from their possession, the prosecution witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. have implicated the applicant; it needs no reiteration that recurrent offences of the nature have caused panic among the people, and, it is oftenly seen that the culprits involved in such offences do not hesitate in taking the lives of innocent persons even on a slightest resistance by the person being looted by them; and, the people, feeling themselves unsafe, due to fear, threats and lack of interest by the police, are avoiding to lodge such cases and/or to become witnesses against the culprits involved in such heinous crimes; admittedly the motorcycle which was allegedly used in the commission of crime, standing in the name of the applicant's father, belongs to the applicant/accused Safeer Ahmed as is evident from ground No.2 of the bail application wherein it is stated that:-
"The documents of the motorcycle were at the name of his father Wazir Ahmed son of Abdul Majeed computerized tax slip showing the ownership of M/Cycle is hereby annexed as annexure "E"." no enmity of the applicant with the complainant is shown; and, thus there is a prima-facie sufficient material available against the applicant to connect him with the offence alleged against him, falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., which dis-entitles him to the grant of bail. Even the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was aged about 17 years at the time of offence alleged against him and he remained in custody since 03.10.2016, therefore, he is entitled to the grant of bail under section 10 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, is also untenable for the reasons that no material worth consideration has been placed on record to establish that the applicant is a juvenile offender; even otherwise section 10(7)(c) of the Ordinance ibid, provides that a child accused of any offence not punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, if detained for such an offence for a continuous period exceeding four months and whose trial for such offence has not concluded, is entitled to the concession of bail. The proviso attached to the said section 10 ibid provides that Court may refuse to grant bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that such child is involved in an offence which in the opinion of Court is serious, heinous, gruesome, brutal, sensational in character or shocking to public morality or he is a previous convict of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. For the sake of convenience, Clause (c) of subsection (7) of section 10 ibid and proviso attached thereto, are reproduced here:- "who, being accused of any offence not punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, has been detained for such an offence for a continuous period exceeding four months and whose trial for such an offence has not concluded".
"Provide that where a child of the age of fifteen years or above is arrested, the Court may refuse to grant bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that such child is involved in an offence which in its opinion is serious, heinous, gruesome, brutal, sensational in character or shocking to public morality or he is previous convict of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life".
7. Needless to say that the offence with which the applicant is charged is the offence of snatching mobile and looting money etc. from the innocent person/passerby on gun point by putting him under fear of death etc. and I am of the view that such an offence by its nature is a serious and heinous offence, falling within the proviso herein above reproduced and the bail could be refused to the applicant/accused even on this ground, had he established himself to be a juvenile offender, what say about the applicant/accused who has not produced any material worth consideration to even prima facie establish that he is a juvenile offender as discussed in paras (supra).
8. The cases relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant, being distinguished on facts and circumstances than the case one in hand, are not applicable to this case as in case of Sher Shah (supra), there was enmity between the complainant and the accused and it was the case of attempt on the life of complainant and not a case of heinous crime involving snatching mobile and cash etc., in case of Siraj Din (supra), the age of applicant based on x-ray examination was between 16 and 17 years, in case of Khurram Shahzad (supra), co-accused Ali Irfan Shahzad was apprehended by the complainant and PWs at the spot and whereas the petitioner, who was not apprehended at the spot, fled away, in case of Muhammad Danish (supra), there was tussle between the accused and the police on non-production of license and documents of the motorcycle, in case of Ali Ahmed (supra), the applicant had remained in custody for more than one and half years and in case of Ghulam Mustafa (supra), the petitioner had not been nominated in FIR in any capacity whatsoever and he had been implicated in the case for the first time through a supplementary statement made by the complainant and the allegation of abetment in absentia and thus none of the cited cases is helpful for the applicant.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the applicant has failed to make out his case for grant of bail and his bail application is liable to be dismissed.
10. Above are the reasons of short order announced by me on 3.12.2016, whereby the bail application was dismissed.
11. It needs no reiteration that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding bail application, and the same shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the case.
WA/S-41/Sindh Bail refuse