IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. B.A. No.D-141 of 2017
|
DATE OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE |
For hearing.
Present:
Mr. Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi
Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro.
Mr. Qurban Ali Malano Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, Assistant Prosecutor General a/w Inspector Abdul Munium Larik of P.S Naushehro Feroze/I.O. of the case.
Date of hearing: 20-04-2017
O R D E R
RASHEED AHMED SOOMRO J.,
Applicant Ali Akbar Rustamani has applied for post-arrest
bail in Crime No.352 of 2016 registered at Police Station, Moro for offence under
section 23(i)-A, Sindh Arms Act, 2013, as his bail plea was declined by learned
Judge, ATC, Naushehro Feroze vide order dated 27.02.2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in FIR are that applicant was arrested in Crime No.348 of 2016 of Police Station Moro on 29.12.2016 and from his possession one unlicensed Pistol 30 Bore with erased number was recovered. After usual investigation challan was submitted against the applicant in the present crime.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that applicant has been granted bail in the main offence as well as in case of police encounter. He has further contended that the Pistol 30 Bore with erased number/description, has been foisted upon the applicant by the police. He next contended that that investigation is complete; challan has been submitted; applicant is no more required for investigation; all the prosecution witnesses are police officials and there is no question of tampering with the prosecution evidence.
4. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General appearing on behalf of the State argued that unlicensed Pistol 30 Bore has been recovered from the possession of the applicant in presence of the mashirs and alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He has opposed the bail application.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and scanned the material available on record, which emanate that after encounter applicant was arrested from his Otaq situated at Moro Town and recovered one Pistol 30 Bore without number. Contention of the learned counsel for applicant that Pistol 30 Bore allegedly recovered from the applicant was a licensed weapon which has been taken away by the police from his house and by erasing its number, same has been foisted upon him at the instance of complainant of crime No. 347 of 2016 of P.S.Moro has carried weighted and it is yet to be determined at the time of trial. Applicant has already been granted bail in main case as well as in a case of police encounter vide crime No. 348 of 2016 of P.S.Moro. Memo of arrest and recovery in all the three cases is one. Applicant is no more required for investigation purpose. All the prosecution witnesses are police officials, hence there is no question of tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is settled law that while hearing an application for bail is not to keep in view the maximum sentence provided by the Statute but the one which is likely to be entailed in the facts and circumstances of the case. Applicant is behind bars since his arrest.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances referred supra, applicant has succeeded to make out a case for his enlargement on post arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry, as envisaged under section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, by our short order dated 20.04.2017, applicant Ali Akbar was admitted to post arrest bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. These are the reasons of our short order dated 20.04.2017.
7. Nothing herein shall affect the determination of the facts at the trial or influence the trial Court in reaching its decision on the merits of the case and observations made supra are tentative in nature.
Bail application stands disposed of in the above manner.
JUDGE
JUDGE