FOR HEARING.

Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan, Advocate for the applicant.

            Mr. Habib-ur-Rasheed, Advocate for the State.

            By this order I intend to dispose of Criminal Bail application filed on behalf of applicants Muhammad Shoaib s/o Ali Sher, in a case bearing Crime No. 97/05, registered at P.S. Sachal (CID) Sindh Gulshan Town, Karachi for an offence under Section 353/324/34 PPC. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Malir at Karachi.

The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that on the eventful day i.e. 19.07.2005 at 0140 hours  Complainant S.I. Nadir Hussain posted at CID Civil Lines, Karachi lodged FIR bearing No. 97/05, the details whereof are given as under:-

“Today I,S.I. Nadir Hussain alongwith officials and staff of CID Civil Line, Karachi was patrolling by service mobile for prevention of crimes and for searching the absconding terrorists in the City of Karachi. During search, a spy information received that some terrorists are roaming on motor-cycles for committing heinous officnes within the area of P.S. Sachal. On such credible information, we reached at Shaheed Qayyum Magsi Chowk, Marvarah Goth, Gulshan Town, Karachi and also arranged “Nakabandi” there. At 0015 hours, 09 persons in suspicious condition were coming on3 motor-cycles from Kiran Hospital side. On pointation and signaling made by the spy, the said persons were directed to stop there with the help of police party. The said suspicious persons in order to make interference in Government job/duty started firing on me and on the police party by firm arms with intention to kill us. I,S.I. also directed the accompanied ASI Malik Mohammad Safdar and Head Constable Shoban Deno No.3638 to encounter the firing for self defence by service SMG. 05 rounds were fired by each SMG in counter firing. The said suspicious persons were caught hold by encircling them. Thereafter, they themselves disclosed their names as (1) Mohammad Shoaib @ Jibran alias Thakor s/o Ali Sher, (2) Shakil-ur-Rehman @ Pathan s/o Mohammad yasin and (3) Mohammad Sajid @ Shuja s/o Mohammad Shafaat. Due to non-availability of private witnesses, the personal search was conducted in presence of accompanied officials. The first one was conducted in presence of accompanied officials. The first one was holding one 30 bore pistol without number alongwith two bullet loaded in magazine in his hand, while one bullet was loaded in chamber. He was holding a hanging bag on his shoulder, from where two K.G powder magazine wrapped in a plastic bag was recovered. One hand grenade was also recovered from his side pocket. From their above No.2, one 30 bore pistol without number along with one bullet loaded in magazine and the other loaded in chamber, which was holding in his right hand were recovered. On further personal search one hand grenade was also recovered from his side pocket. From the aboveNo.3, one 30 bore pistol without number along with one bullet loaded in magazine and the other loaded in chamber which was holding in his right hand were recovered. From further personal search one hand grenade was also recovered from his side pocket. The accused were arrested at the spot. They could not produce valid license on demand. Their other companion escaped away on motor-cycles by taking  the advantage of darkness of night. The  act of arrested accused persons falls under Section 353, 324 P.P.C. Separate cases under Section 13-D Arms Ordinance and Explosive Ordinance were also registered.”

            The investigation followed and in due course the applicant was sent up to stand trial in the Court of competent jurisdiction.

            I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is implicated falsely due to enmity. It has also been contended that neither the Police officials nor any private person received any injury nor any of the vehicle was hit by firing. Learned counsel further argues that Police action was taken up on a spy information, but none from the locality nor any private person was associated at the time of search and recovery.  Lastly he contended that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the applicants. On all these scores it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a fit case where the applicant could be enlarged on bail. As against the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant,  learned counsel for the State oppose the grant of bail on the ground that huge quantity of arms and ammunition and explosive had been revered from them. Learned counsel for the State in that eventuality argues that it’s a fit case where the concession of bail could not be extended to the applicant.

            For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail which is granted provided if he furnishes surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One Hundred Thousand) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Cr. Bail No. 901 of 2005 stands disposed of as such. 

             The above are the reasons for the short order dated 3.10.2005, by which I granted bail to the Applicant.

JUDGE