IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Present:

Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho

Crl. Bail application No.S-2470 of 2022

For hearing of Bail application.

Applicant : Fahad son of Shakeel Through

Mr. Muhammad Khalid Akhtar, Advocate.

Respondent : The State Through Ms. Amina Ansari.

Date of hearing : 06.01.2023

Date of order. : 09.01.2023.

O R D E R

ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, J: Through this bail application, the applicant/accused seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.1137/2022 registered under Sections 23(i)A, Sindh Arms Ordinance, 2013 at Police Station Aziz Bhatti, Karachi. After his plea has been declared by Xth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East vide order dated 14.12.2022.

2. Briefly, the fact as narrated in the First Information Report registered by HC Raja Abid at Police Station, Aziz Bhatti stating that applicant was in possession of one 30 bore Pistol without licence with silver handle without number of which was called “MAISER MADE IN CHINA BY NORINCO was written. Hence, FIR has been lodged by the complainant on behalf of State.

3. Learned counsel for applicant/accused contended that applicant/accused is innocent and the recovery has been foisted by the complainant with the help of Police with mala fide intention and ulterior motives for unlawful gain otherwise there is no any evidence available with the prosecution against the applicant/accused. Learned counsel further argued that no independent private person has been associated by the complainant to witness the alleged recovery which is clear violation of mandatory provision of Section 103 Cr.P.C; that the applicant is in jail since his arrest and he is no more required for further investigation. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused further argued that the applicant/accused will not abscond and or tamper with the prosecution evidence. He lastly rayed for grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant. He relied upon case of Yousif Ali Khan v. The State (2021 P.Cr.L.J Note 17) and Naeem-ul-Areen v. The State (2016 MLD 1543).

4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State has half-heartedly opposed the grant of bail and has supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned DPG so also perused the material available on record. No doubt that these type of crimes are increasing day by day but only on the basis of this the bail cannot be refused to applicant. The case in hand requires further inquiry under Sub-Section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The compliance of Section 103 Cr.P.C should have been made as prime object of said Section was to ensure transparency and fairness on the part of police during course of recovery which is lacking in this case, therefore, the applicant/accused is entitled for concession of bail. All the witnesses of prosecution are Police officials and family members of the complainant, no independent person of the locality has been cited as witness in charge-sheet, which makes this case fir for further inquiry.

6. In view of the forgoing, learned counsel for the applicant made out a case of further inquiry with the meaning of Sub-Section(2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Therefore, applicant/accused is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifth thousand only) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of this learned Trial Court.

7. Needless to mention here that observation made herein above are tentative in nature and trial Court may not be influenced of the same and decide the case on its own merits as per evidence and the material made available before it. These are the reasons of my short order dated 06.01.2023 whereby bail application was allowed.

Bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.

J U D G E

Ihsan/*