ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Applications Nos.175, 81 and 261 of 2014

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE                 ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF JUDGE(S) 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          For hearing

          --------------

 

26.02.2014

 

            Mr. Muhammad Tariq, Advocate for Applicant (in Cr. BA No.175/2014)

            Mr. Abdul Wahab Baloch, Advocate for Applicant (in Cr BA. No.81/ 2014)

            Mr. Amir Ali Shah, Advocate for Applicant (in Cr. B.A. No.261/2014)

            Mr. Khadim Hussain Khuharo, D.P.G. along with IO/IP Muhammad Hussain Chandio of P.S. Sachal

          ---------------------------------------------------------

 

          By this single order we intend to dispose of aforesaid bail applications moved on behalf of the Applicants/accused Ishaque son of Muhammad Sadiq, Ghulam Qadir Gabol S/o Aachar and Danish son of Muhammad Iqbal Memon, arising out of Crime No.257/2013 registered at P.S. Sachal on 20.05.2013 under Sessions 147/148/149/353/324/34 PPC and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

 

          Brief facts of the prosecution as disclosed in FIR are that on 20.05.2013 ASI Fazal Ahmad along with his subordinate staff was performing patrolling duty in the area. At 1045 hours police party reached at Aziz Bhatti Park near Johar Complex. It is alleged that 50/60 persons armed with lathies, sticks and stones under leadership of one Aijaz Samtio belonging to the National Movement Party were protesting and pelting stones on the vehicles on the road, mob had got the shops closed and road was blocked. ASI Fazal Ahmed gave such information to the concerned SHO and said SHO along with subordinate staff reached at place of incident and encircled the persons who were protesting/creating hindrance on the road. It is alleged that accused persons fired upon the police party with intention to kill and in such firing SHO received firearm injury on his back side. Police also fired in the self defence. Thereafter, some accused were apprehended. On the inquiry they disclosed their names as Gulshan son of Muhammad, Ishaque son of Muhammad Sadiq, Doda Khan son of Liaquat and Tariq son of Maroof Abdul Ghaffar. It is alleged that Aijaz Samtio, who was leading the mob, succeeded in running away from the scene of occurrence in his car bearing No.AYB-822. Personal search of accused Gulshan was conducted by SHO in presence of mashirs, one 30 bore pistol without number and three live bullets were recovered from his possession and he has no license for weapon carried by him. Personal search of accused Ashiq son of Sadiq was also conducted, 30 bore pistol, without license was recovered from him as well as two live bullets. Apprehended accused during interrogation disclosed the names of the co-accused who succeeded in running away, they were Imam Bux son of Ghulam Hussain, Hajan son of Haji Ali Muhammad Chandio, Qadir Gabol, Ghulam Rasool Sodar, Aijaz Samtio son of Muhammad Mithal, Sher Jan Khoso, Ramzan Khoso, Javed Bhatti and Raees Memon. Police searched Car bearing NO.AYB-822. One shopping bag containing 87 live bullets of SMG were recovered from it. From the search of Alto VXR 11 live bullets of 9mm pistol, 12 live bullets of 30 bore and 15 live bullets of 12 bore pistol were recovered. Accused were arrested, mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared in presence of mashirs. Thereafter, accused and case property were brought to the police station, where, ASI Fazal Ahmed lodged FIR against the accused on behalf of the State. It was recorded vide crime No.257/2013 under Sections 324, 354, 147, 148, 149 PPC and 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Separate FIRs under Section 23(i)(a) Sindh Arms Act 2013 were lodged against accused Ishaq and others on behalf of State.

 

          After usual investigation challan was submitted against the accused in the main Crime under Sections 324, 323, 147, 148, 149 PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and under Section 23(i)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013.

         

          Accused Ishaq, Danish and Ghulam Qadir Gabol moved separate bail after arrest applications in Crime No.257/2013, the same were rejected by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism-I Karachi vide order dated 01.11.2013 and 01.01.2014.  

 

          M/s. Muhammad Tariq, Abdul Wahab Baloch and Syed Amir Ali Shah Jillani, learned Advocates for the Applicants, contended that despite firing with the sophisticated weapons from both the sides no one received injury except one SHO on his backside. It is argued that police has involved more than 50 accused persons in this case for mala fide reasons and prosecution case is highly doubtful. It is further argued that case has already been challaned there is no question of tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is contented that no empty was recovered from the place of wardat though there was heavy firing.  In support of their contention reliance has been placed upon the case of RAB NAWAZ versus THE STATE (1990 SCMR 1085).

 

          Mr. Khadim Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh, appearing behalf of the State, argued that the names of the applicants/accused transpired in the FIR, SHO has received injury in the incident, unlicensed weapons have been recovered from the possession of the accused, case is a fresh one, however, he has pointed out that no empty was collected from the place of wardat and weapons have not been sent to the Ballistic Expert. He has halfheartedly opposed the bail applications. 

 

          We have carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

 

          In our considered view, prima facie a case for grant of bail to the applicants/accused is made out for the reasons that despite cross-firing no one has received firearm injury except one injury to the SHO on his back. From the place of wardat no empty was collected. It is not clear that out of 50/60 accused persons who had fired upon the SHO. In the circumstances of the case, whether accused intentionally fired upon police party, yet it is to be determined at trial. All the PWs are police officials, there is no question of tampering with the evidence, weapons recovered from the accused have not been sent to the Ballistic Expert. Rightly reliance has been placed upon the above cited authority in which Honourable Supreme Court has been pleased to observed as under:-

 

“The injury on the head of Iftikhar Ahmad Constable is simple, whereas the other two injuries on the injured witnesses have not been explained in the F.I.R. The contention that Abdul Hameed Bajwa, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Miana Gondal, bore grudge against the petitioner for having made a statement against him before the Additional Superintendent of Police on 23rd August, 1989, is not without significance. In this background and in view of the absence of any bullet injury, the fact whether the petitioner did intentionally fire at the police party, but was unsuccessful to hit anybody, because the bullet missed, or the case has been padded by the inclusion of this false firing, assumes prominence and since this matter cannot be determined, till proper evidence is recorded in the case, we would, taking all circumstances into consideration, allow bail to the petitioner.”

 

          For the above stated reasons, while relying upon the above cited authority, we hold that case cannot be determined against the applicants/accused till evidence is recorded by the trial Court. Prima facie, case against applicants/accused requires further inquiry. Therefore, concession of the bail is extended to the Applicants/accused, namely, Ishaque son of Muhammad Sadiq, Ghulam Qadir Gabol S/o Aachar and Danish son of Muhammad Iqbal Memon, in the sum of Rs.100,000/- each and PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, applicant/accused Ishaq shall be admitted to bail subject to his furnished surety in the sum Rs.200,000/- and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

 

            Needless, to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence trial Court while deciding the case of the applicants/accused.

 

                                                                                      JUDGE

 

                                                                   JUDGE

Gulsher/PA