ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

                                          Cr.B.A.No.S-  365  of 2011

DATE                                     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

19.08.2011.

Mr. Ayaz Hussain Tunio, Advocate for applicant.

Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G for the State.

                        =

            Applicant Muhammad Sharif alongwith others has been booked in Crime No.101/2011 of P.S Qasimabad for offence U/s 353, 324 and 34 PPC, seeks post arrest bail as his bail plea has been turned down by the trial Court vide order dated 14.5.2011.

            Per prosecution case, the applicant alongwith co-accused Masood alias Maqsood, Muhammad Sharif, Irshad and Rashid Hussain was arrested on 27.4.2011 during an encounter with a police party headed by SIP Gulshan Ali Mahar. During encounter, the applicant and his companions received fire arm injuries at the hands of police and surrendered before the police party alongwith their unlicensed weapons.

            The learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Per learned counsel, neither any encounter has ever taken place nor the applicant has received injury during such so called encounter. He further contended that in fact the applicant was arrested from his house and he has received the injury in a fake encounter at the hands of police party. He lastly contended that not only the present applicant but other accused also received fire arm injuries at their respective knees which is against normal human conduct and does not attract to prudent mind. As against above, Syed Meeral Shah, learned D.P.G for the State opposed the application on the ground that applicant was arrested during an encounter while he received injury at the hands of police party and police also secured 30 bore pistol from his possession.

            It appears that during the exchange of firing, none from the police party has received any injury. Even not a single bullet hit the police vehicle. The prosecution could not place on record any proof to show that ammunition allegedly recovered from the present applicant was sent to the ballistic expert nor prosecution is not a position to show that pistol allegedly recovered from the present applicant was in a working condition. Since all the four accused have received the injuries at the very same location which is very strange; besides above mashirs of arrest and recovery are also police personnel which creates doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. Under some what similar circumstances this court has granted bail to the accused; Reference can be made to the case of Sain Bakhsh and 2 others Vs. The State (2005 YLR 810).

Keeping in view the above facts and principle laid down in Sain Bux case (supra), I am of the considered view that case of the applicant requires further inquiry. Consequently, the application is granted. Let the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One lac) and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.      

                                                                                                JUDGE

Tufail