THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.1529 of 2024
Criminal Bail Application No.1538 of 2024
Present: Naimatullah
Phulpoto, J.
Criminal Bail Application No.1529/2024
Applicant/accused: Muhammad Danish s/o Abdul Khaliq
through Mr. Shah Imroz Khan,
advocate
Criminal Bail Application No.1538/2024
Applicant/accused: Noman son of Shah Mehmood
through Mr. Shah Imroz Khan,
advocate
Respondent: The
State through Mr. Zafar Ahmad Khan, Additional Prosecutor
General Sindh.
Complainant: through Mr. Deedar Ali Chandio, advocate
Date
of Hearing : 05.12.2024
O R D E R
NAIMATULLAH
PHULPOTO, J.- Applicants/accused Muhammad Danish and Noman seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No.559 of 2024,
registered at P.S. Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi,
for offence under section 302, 34, PPC. Prior to this, applicants/accused
applied for the same reliefs before learned X-Additional Sessions Judge,
Karachi East but the same were rejected vide order dated 09.07.2024.
2. Brief
facts of the case are that on 06.05.2024 at 04:00 a.m. Gul
Bahar Khoso lodged FIR,
alleging therein that he is chowkidar at Bangali Market, on 05.05.2024 at 11:45 hours, he was
present at Murtaza Chowk,
he heard gunshot reports and went running there and saw accused (1) Sultan, (2)
Nadir, (3) Noman, (4) Danish and one unknown person,
they were firing at his son Muhammad Ali and his friend Imtiaz.
Both injured succumbed to the injuries at the spot and accused ran away from
the scene of offence. Complainant lodged FIR on 06.05.2024 at 04:00 a.m. at
P.S. Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi against the
accused.
3. Mr. Shah Imroze
Khan, learned counsel for the applicants/accused mainly contended that
allegations against the applicants/accused are generalized in nature; that the
applicants/accused were not present at the time of
incident; that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further contended
that there was delay of four hours in lodging the FIR and case against
applicants/accused requires further inquiry. Learned counsel for the
applicants/accused in support of his contentions relied upon the cases of Khair Muhammad and another versus The State through P.G.
Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 130), Muhammad Azam
Khan versus The State and another (2017 MLD 349), Saeed
Gul and another versus The State (2023 PCr.LJ 823), Sajid Hussain alias Joji versus The
State and another (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 898).
4. Mr.
Muhammad Iqbal Awan,
learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, assisted by learned counsel for
the complainant, argued that applicants/accused Muhammad Danish and Noman had fired at both deceased persons Muhammad Ali and Imtiz and each of the deceased had sustained four (4)
firearm injuries; that delay in lodging FIR has been fully explained. It is
further argued that empties were collected from the place of incident.
Additional Prosecutor General Sindh further submitted that crime weapons could
not be recovered from the possession of the applicants/accused, as the applicants/accused
had obtained ad-interim pre-arrest
bail from the Court. Additional P.G. further
contended that applicant/accused Muhammad Danish has been dismissed from police
service on account of his involvement in heinous offences. Lastly, it is
argued that basic ingredient for grant of bail of ulterior motive on the part
of the police and complainant is missing in this case and offence carries capital
punishment. Additional P.G. opposed the applications. Investigating officer present
in Court submits that he could not recover the crime weapons, because the
applicants/accused had obtained interim pre-arrest bail from the Court.
5. I
have carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant record.
6. From
the contents of the FIR, 161 Cr.PC statements of the
eyewitnesses and other material collected during investigation, it transpires
that, prima facie, applicants/accused
fired upon both the deceased persons, medical reports support it. Delay of four
hours in lodging FIR in this case, would not be sufficient to grant pre-arrest
bail to accused. Learned counsel for applicants/accused has raised plea of
alibi, the same can only be appreciated by trial Court deeply after recording
of evidence. Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not permissible.
No doubt, allegations are generalized in nature but there is sufficient
material to connect the applicants/accused in the commission of offence. Grant
of bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief to be granted
only in extraordinary situations to protect innocent persons against
victimization for ulterior motives; pre-arrest bail is not to be used as a
substitute or as an alternative for post-arrest bail; not just this but in
addition thereto, applicants/accused must also show that their arrest is being
sought for ulterior motives, particularly on the part of the police; to cause
irreparable humiliation to them and to disgrace and dishonour
them in society. Reliance is placed upon the case of Rana
Muhammad Arshad versus Muhammad Rfiq
and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427).
7. Prima facie, there are reasonable
grounds to believe that applicants/accused Muhammad Danish and Noman are involved in the commission of offence, which is punishable
for death or imprisonment for life and ingredients of grant of pre-arrest bail
are not satisfied. Therefore, application for pre-arrest bail is without merit,
the same is dismissed.
8. Needless
to mention here that observations made herein above are tentative in nature,
learned trial Court shall not be influenced by such observations while deciding
the case on merits.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS