ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

HYDERABAD.

Cr.Bail.Appl.No.S- 987  of   2015

DATE     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

15.10.2015.

Mr. Shaikh Nabi Bux Azad, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Iram Ahmed, D.D.P.P.

                   =

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J:         Applicant / accused Inamullah seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.96/2015 registered at Police Station Umerkot City for offence u/s 23 (1) (a) Sindh Arms Act, 2013.

2.       The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that present applicant / accused was arrested on 25.07.2015 at 0730 hours from Umerkot-Mirpurkhas link road by police party headed by ASI Muhammad Boota Joyo of P.S Umerkot City and from his possession one unlicensed 30 bore pistol alongwith three live bullets was recovered and such FIR was registered. After usual investigation challan was submitted against the accused.

3.       Bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant / accused Inamullah before the learned Sessions Judge, Umerkot, the same was rejected vide orders dated 12.09.2015. Thereafter, applicant / accused approached this Court.

4.       Learned counsel for the applicant / accused contended that pistol allegedly recovered is licensed weapon, in the name of father of co-accused, it has been foisted by police. Investigation is already completed and the applicant / accused is no more required for investigation. It is further contended that maximum sentence as provided in the Statute may not be awarded to the applicant / accused in this case. He lastly argued that the present applicant / accused has already been acquitted by the trial Court in main case by way of compromise vide order dated 12.10.2015. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases reported as Jamaluddin allias Zubair Khan v. The State (2012 SCMR 573) and Muhammad Mubarak v. The State (1998 P.Cr.L.J 648).

5.       Mr. Iram Ahmed, learned D.D.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, opposed the bail application mainly on the ground that the present applicant / accused was arrested in the instant crime and a T.T. Pistol has been recovered from his possession and the case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.

6.       I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant / accused for the reasons that learned advocate for applicant / accused has produced copy of license, in the name of Hamid Ali, father of co-accused in main case. This fact has not been denied by D.D.P.P. and it is argued that pistol has been foisted upon applicant / accused by police with malafide reasons. Case has been challaned. There is no progress in trial. Needless to say that the Court while hearing a bail application not to keep in view the maximum sentence provided by the Statue but the one which is likely to be entailed in the facts and circumstances of the case. While relying upon the above cited authorities, keeping in view above circumstances, I hold that case of applicant / accused, prima facie, requires further inquiry as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The applicant / accused Inamullah is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

7.       Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant / accused on merits.

                                                                             JUDGE

Tufail