Judge for dealing with nexus between robbers, shopkeepers selling and buying snatched cellphones

A sessions court has declined bail to two suspects arrested for alleged involvement in the sale and purchase of snatched mobile phones, observing that it is necessary to deal with a nexus between robbers and shopkeepers who support these criminal activities by purchasing such cell phones.

Additional Sessions Judge (West) Sohail Ahmed Mashori dismissed applications filed by Ubaid and Muhammad Imran seeking post-arrest bail in a case pertaining to the murder of a citizen and injuring his father over resistance during robbery in January this year.

On January 12, Faiz Mohammad and his father Fatah Mohammad were travelling on a motorbike when armed muggers, also on a motorcycle, stopped them near Power House and snatched their cell phones. As the youth put up resistance, the robbers opened fire on the duo, as a result of which he was killed while his father suffered wounds.

The judge noted that the cell phone snatched from the duo was traced with the help of the IMEI as it was found to be in use of a person named Naimatullah in Chaman. Further investigations revealed that Ubaid, who was involved in the sale and purchase of snatched cell phones, was in touch with Naimatullah as per the mobile phone’s call data record (CDR), he added.

Another number linked to suspect Imran was also found to have been in contact with Ubaid, the judge said, adding that on February 14, the police arrested both suspects with Ubaid was found in possession of seven cell phones during the arrest. However, he failed to provide any proof such as their boxes or purchase receipts. The accused admitted to purchasing the cell phone of the complainant from two persons, Nazim and Okasha.

Subsequently, a separate FIR was lodged against them over involvement in the trade of the stolen property. The judge said there was a criminal network at play, wherein on the one hand, robbers resorted to murdering innocent citizen sat the slightest resistance, and on the other hand, people like the present accused helped and harboured them by purchasing such robbed cell phones from hardened criminals having multiple cases registered against them.

“It is high time to seriously deal with such nexus of robbers and shopkeepers supporting them through purchase of such cell phones etc.,” he remarked, ruling that given the seriousness of the charges and the risk of flight and obstruction of justice, the accused were not entitled to concession of bail.

State prosecutor Muhammad Ashraf Qaiser contended that the complainant, a Supreme Court employee, and his son were en route to the wedding of his colleague when they were intercepted by robbers. He said the muggers killed the complainant’s son Faiz in front of him over resistance.

The applicants’ counsel, however, claimed that their clients were innocent and had falsely been implicated in the case. Since they were booked for the alleged offence punishable under Section 412 (dishonestly receiving stolen property in the commission of a dacoity) of the Pakistan Penal Code, they should be given post-arrest bail, they said.

An FIR was lodged under sections 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), 396 (dacoity with murder), 302 (murder), and 34 (common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code at the Surjani Town police station.