ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH
AT SUKKUR.
Crl:
Bail Application No. D- 844 of
2015
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF
HON’BLE JUDGE
Present:-
Mr.
Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi&
Mr.
Justice GhulamQadirLeghari, JJ
FOR HEARING
21st. December, 2015.
Mr.
Muhammad Farooque Ali Jatoi, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, Asstt: A.G.
It is, inter-alia, contended by the
learned Counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in Crime No.83 of 2015 registered at police station “C” Section,
Sukkur under Sections 324, 353, 148, 149 PPC & 7-Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
whereas, there is admitted enmity between applicant and the police party i.e
injured PC Muhammad EidanJatoi due to dispute over children. Per learned
Counsel, the applicant has been falsely implicated in three other F.I.Rs i.e
Crime No. 80, 81 and 84on the same day by the same police within a short period
of two hours. Per learned Counsel, there is no independent eye witness of the
alleged incidence, whereas, the pistol has also been foisted upon applicant to
justify the instant F.I.R. Per learned Counsel, either the injury sustained is self-inflicted
or has been received in same incident, moreover, the injury is shown at lower
part of leg, whose punishment is not more than 3 years. Per learned Counsel no
other co-accused has been arrested by the police, whereas, and only the present
applicant has been arrested, who is a young boy of about 18 years of age,
having no criminal history. Learned Counsel further submits that in the
aforesaid F.I.Rs against applicant, the learned trial Court has already granted
bail to the applicant on the basis of statements of the complainant(s), who
have categorically stated that neither they have lodged such F.I.Rs nor the
applicant is their accused, which reflects upon the malafide on the part of
police who are bent upon to drag the applicant in false criminal cases. In
support of his contentions, learned Counsel referred the order passed by
learned trial Court in the aforesaid crimes, and has also placed on record the
certified copy of Medical Certificate regarding age of present applicant.
2. Conversely,
learned D.P.G opposed the grant of bail and submits since PC Muhammad
EidanJatoi has sustained injury, whereas, medical report also supports the case
of prosecution, therefore, the applicant may not be enlarged on bail, whereas, recovery
of pistol has also been affected from the applicant and the ballistic report
also supports prosecution case.
3. We
have heard the learned Counsel for applicant and perused the record. It appears
that the applicant has been implicated in four F.I.Rs which were registered at
the same police station in a short period of about two hours, whereas, he has
been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court in Crime No.80, 81 and 84 of
2015, in which the complainants have exonerated the applicant in said F.I.Rs, and have stated
that the applicant is not their accused. It further appears that there is no
private witness associated by the police either with the arrest or recovery
memo, whereas, no other accused person is arrested by the police. There is no
previous criminal record of the applicant who is reportedly a young boy of 18
years of age, whereas, the injury is in the lower portion of leg. False
implication of applicant by the police cannot, under the circumstances, be
ruled out, whereas, weare of the opinion
that matter requires further inquiry. Accordingly, the applicant is granted
bail in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two
Lacs) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial
Court.
Needless
to observe that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and may
not influence the trial.
JUDGE
A.R.BROHI