ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

1^st Crl. Bail Appln. No.D-40 of 2023.

Date Order with signature of Hon’ble Judge

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of Bail Application.

Applicants

(Tufail Ahmed) : Through Mr. Abdul Hakeem Brohi, Advocate.

and another

The State : Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G.

Date of hearing : 13.12.2023.

O R D E R

Applicants Tufail Ahmed son of Badihal Bangulani and Abdul Hameed alias Nango son of Abdul Haleem Lashari have filed this application seeking post arrest bail in crime No.102 of 2023, registered under sections 402, 399, 324, 353, 337-H(2), PPC read with Section 6/7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at PS A-Section, Thul, District Jacobabad. Earlier, their application seeking bail was dismissed on 22-8-2023 by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur.

2. The background to this case is that on 02-7-2023, SIP Bashir Ahmed Naseerani lodged the aforementioned F.I.R. narrating therein that a police party led by him being on patrol duty, on a tip-off, spotted and clashed with 05 armed culprits including the present applicants riding on two motorcycles, and after face-to-face cross-firing, apprehended applicants in injured condition, which they allegedly sustained at the hands of their accomplices, along with lathies, which were allegedly carrying at the relevant time; hence, the complainant registered FIR on behalf of State.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned D.P.G and with their able assistance also perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has focused his argument on the fact that the alleged encounter never actually happened and that it is unbelievable that in spite of the shootout between the police and the armed accused persons, no member of police party received any injury. He submitted that the applicants have been falsely involved in the case and that they have no past criminal record.

5. Conversely, learned D.P.G. opposed the bail application, merely on the ground that the police officials had no enmity with the applicants to falsely involve them in this case.

6. Surprisingly, despite cross-firing between the culprits and police personnel, nobody from either side sustained any injury or even any scratch to attract Section 324, PPC and even the mobile van of police was not hit by any bullet. As far as Section 353, PPC is concerned, same due to non-availability of any injury sustained by any member of police party, is yet to be established by the prosecution; more-so, the applicants were shown to be carrying lathies. As far Section 399 read with 402, PPC are concerned, learned DPG admitted that no criminal case has been shown registered against the present applicants; and even on the night of alleged incident falling between 1^st and 2^{nd July}, 2023 no any offence was committed and/or reported within the jurisdiction of PS A-Section, Thul, therefore, basic ingredients for applying Sections 399 read with 402, PPC are also lacking and yet to be established by the prosecution after recording evidence of its witnesses. This fact alone would form the basis of granting bail to the applicants. Whether the alleged encounter was a genuine one is yet to be proved at trial after evidence is led. Upon a tentative assessment of the record, it appears that the case against the applicants requires further enquiry as envisaged under sub-section (2) to Section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, it would be safe to enlarge the applicants on bail pending trial.

7. Above are the reasons of our short order dated 13.12.2023, whereby instant bail application was allowed and applicants were directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing their solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- each and P.R. Bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

JUDGE