IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal
Bail Application No. 1607 of 2023
[Haider Ali & Shahzad versus
The State]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(s) OF THE JUDGE(s) |
For hearing of bail application
--------------------------------
17.08.2023
Mr. Safiullah Baloch, advocate for applicants/accused
Mr. Ali Haider Saleem, Additional Prosecutor General
-------------------------------------------------
Naimatullah Phulpoto,
J.- Haider
Ali and Shahzad applicants/accused seek post arrest
bail in Crime No. 321/2023 for offences under Sections 353/324/34 PPC read with
Section 7 ATA of 1997 registered at P.S Peerabad,
Karachi. Bail application was moved on behalf of the applicants/accused, the
same was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 13.07.2023. Thereafter,
the applicants/accused approached this Court.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are
that complainant ASI Rana Amir along with his
subordinate staff was on patrolling on 19.05.2023 at about 0240, when reached
at main Manghopir Road near Raees
Centre, police saw 04 persons on two motorcycles, who were signaled to stop,
but they started firing, police also fired in retaliation. Police apprehended
all the accused persons out of whom applicants/accused had received fire arm
injuries. From the personal search of all the accused persons, police recovered
unlicensed weapons and live bullets which were sealed in presence of mashirs.
After completing the formalities, accused persons were brought at P.S where
aforesaid FIR was registered against them on behalf of state.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants/accused
contended that it was a case of cross-firing but not a single injury was caused
to the police officials and the applicants/accused sustained fire arm injuries
at the police station. It is further contended that prior to lodging of the
FIR, brother and father of the applicants/accused had moved applications to the
high officials and had also filed Constitution Petition before this Court alleging
that applicants/accused have been picked up by the SHO of PS Peerabad. Lastly, it is submitted that ingredients of the
alleged offences are yet to be determined at trial. In support of his
contentions, reliance has been placed upon case of Yousuf and another vs. The State (2021 YLR 843).
4. Mr. Ali Haider
Saleem, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, argued
that both the applicants/accused were arrested by the police in injured
condition, P.Ws have implicated them in the commission of the offence;
unlicensed crime weapons were recovered from their possession. As such, he has
opposed bail application.
5. We are inclined to grant bail to the
applicants/accused for the reasons that it is case of the prosecution that
there was cross firing with the sophisticated weapons, but not a single scratch
was caused to the police officials. It is a matter of record that prior to the
arrest of the applicants/accused, brother and father of the applicants/accused
had moved applications to the high police officials as well as to the Hon’ble
Chief Justice and filed Constitution Petition before this Court alleging
therein that applicants/accused have been picked up by the SHO of PS Peerabad one day prior to the lodgment of the FIR. After
registration of the FIR, I.O had failed to inquire into/investigate about the plea
raised in Constitution Petition and in applications moved by the brother and
father of the applicants/accused. It is contended before us that this is a case
of ‘half fry’ and excess of police
for the malafide reasons. In the case of Muhammad Noman
versus the State and another (2017 SCMR 560), Apex Court has held as under:
“Family
of accused on the other hand alleged that accused was picked up from his house
by some unknown persons and subsequently police showed his arrest; that the
incident of accused's abduction was immediately reported to the police, and
that a habeas corpus petition was also filed to find the whereabouts of the
accused after his abduction---Written complaint submitted by family of accused
about his abduction from his house, was neither inquired into nor investigated
in any manner whatsoever, rather the same was deliberately suppressed by the
police”.
6. Learned
Addl: P. G. submitted that applicants/accused are no more required for investigation as final report
has already been submitted before the competent Court of law.
7. Prima facie, there are no reasonable grounds for believing
that the applicants/accused have committed the alleged offences but there are
sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt. Resultantly,
concession of bail is extended to applicants/accused Haider
Ali and Shahzad subject to their furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand)
each and P.R. Bond in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. Needless to mention here that the observations made herein
above are tentative in nature, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the
same while deciding the case of the applicants/accused on merits.
J U D G E
J
U D G E