IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.S-730 of 2021

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For orders on O/objection at flag-A.

2. For hearing of bail application.

Date of hearing 23.12.2021.

Mr. Saeed Ahmed Lund advocate for applicant.

Syed Sardar Ali Shah Addl: Prosecutor General.

O R D E R

MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J; Through instant bail application, applicant Jinsar Ali son of Illumuddin Lund seeks his admission on post-arrest bail in Crime No.110/2020 registered at Police Station, Ranipur for offence punishable under Section 23(i)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013. After thorough investigation the case was challaned by the Police which is now pending for trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat vide Sessions Case No.665/2020 Re-State v. Jinsar Ali Lund. The bail plea raised by the applicant before trial Court was declined through order dated 05.10.2021.

2. The facts of the prosecution case are mentioned in the FIR attached with the memo of bail application and the same are not to be re-produced in view of the case of Mohammad Shakeel v. The State and others reported as PLD 2014 SC 458.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and nothing was secured from his possession; however, weapon allegedly shown to have been recovered from him in fact was foisted upon him. Next submits that he is in custody right from date of his arrest viz. 23.10.2020 and trial has not been concluded. He, therefore, submits that applicant may be enlarged on bail. In support of his contentions he places reliance upon case of Anwar Khan v. The State (2014 YLR 1573)

4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General though opposes the bail application; however, submits that charge against accused has been framed and one PW/I.O. has been examined while remaining witnesses though are from the police department have not been examined. Learned Addl.P.G further admits, the applicant is not responsible for causing delay in conclusion of the trial.

5. Heard arguments. Perused record.

6. Since, the weapon allegedly shown to have been recovered from possession of the applicant was not used in any crime and the recovery is yet to be established by the prosecution after recording evidence of its witnesses. The applicant is in custody right from the date of his arrest viz. 23.10.2020 whereas, the trial has yet not been concluded. Per case diaries issued by the trial Court on certain dates none of the PW was in attendance therefore, the delay in conclusion of the trial cannot be attributed to the applicant or anybody acting on his behalf. The punishment provided by the law for the offence u/s 23(i)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 is discretionary which is to be determined by the trial Court after completion of the trial. Reliance can be placed upon the case of Ayaz Ali v. The State (PLD 2014 Sindh 282).

7. As far as the list of criminal cases as per CRO disclosed by learned Additional Prosecutor General is concerned, none of those cases applicant has been shown convicted rather as per learned counsel for applicant, he has been acquitted from the charge of all cases hence, mere pendency or involvement of the applicant in series of the cases which subsequently were ended in his acquittal is no ground to withhold concession of bail to an accused. It is settled law one cannot be kept behind the Bars without progress in his trial. Accordingly, as well in the circumstances and in view of long incarceration of the applicant without ostensible progress in his trial I am of the opinion, the accused/applicant makes out a good prima facie case of further inquiry within parameter of Sub-Section(2) to Section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly bail application is hereby allowed. Applicant/accused Jinsar Ali Lund is granted post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail application stands disposed of.

J U D G E

Ihsan