IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.514 of 2025
Criminal Bail Application No.576 of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail applications
-----------------------------------------------------
14.03.2025
M/s Sikandar Ali Shar & Saleh
Muhmmad Brohi, advocate for applicants in Bail Application No514/2025
Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Abro, advocate
for applicants in B.A.576/2025
Ms. Rubina Qadir, D.P.G.
PI/SIO Mahboob Elahi and SIP Naveed
Akhtar of PS SSHIA, Karachi
------------------------------------
Applicants/accused
Ghulam Nabi son of Amanullah, Farhan son of Muhammad Hussain, Ali Hassan son of
Ali Dost, Abid Hussain son of Buland Khan, Israr Ahmed son of Buland Khan,
Saifullah son of Rehmatullah, Muhammad Murad son of Muhammd Siddique, Abdul
Basit son of Muhammad Saleh, Ghulam Jan son of Raza Muhammad, Sardar Khan son
of Basheer Ahmed, Abdul Rasheed son of Basheer Ahmed, Irshad Rafiq son of
Muhammad Rafiq (in Cr. Bail Application
No.514/2025) and applicants/accused Shafi Muhammad son of Sawali, Munir
Ahmed son of Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Nawaz son of Jankian Khan, Abdul Sattar son
of Faiz Muhammad and Sameed Ahmed alias Hameed Ahmed son of Muhammad Azeem ( in Criminal Bail Application No.576/2025)
seek post arrest bail in FIR No.172/2025, registered at P.S. Site Superhighway
Industrial Area, Karachi for offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 395,
452, 337-H(ii), 337-A(i), PPC, after rejection of their bail plea by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I/MCYC, Malir, Karachi vide order dated 21.02.2025.
2. Brief
facts of the case are that applicants/accused are nominated in FIR with
specific role played by them, who entered the factory of complainant at night
hours, duly armed with sophisticated weapons, committed dacoity of valuable
articles and cash, they were arrested at spot and 3 SMGs and 2 Repeaters of 12
bore were recovered from their possession, hence the subject FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicants submit that applicants are innocent and they have been
falsely implicated in this case; that there is civil litigation pending between
the parties before this Court being Suits Nos.553/2023, 1351/2023 and Suit
No.B-55/2022; that pre-arrest bail has been granted to co-accused whereas post
arrest bail has been declined to the present applicants by learned trial Court
and the case of present applicants is on identical footings to the case of
co-accused, who were granted pre-arrest bail; that during investigation Section
395, PPC was deleted in the interim challan and remaining Sections are
bailable.
4. M/s
Agha Ali Khan Durrani and Manzoor Hussain, advocates, filed power on behalf of
complainant in Criminal Bail Application No.514 of 2025, and assisted learned
D.P.G. They opposed for grant of bail to the applicants on the ground that
applicants are force personnel, they duly armed with sophisticated weapons,
entered in the factory of complainant committed dacoity and were arrested at
the spot and weapons were recovered from their possession. IO present in Court
submits that case has not been made out against applicants/accused under
section 395, PPC.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicants, D.P.G. and counsel for complainant and perused
the material available on record.
6. Admittedly,
there is civil dispute between the parties and Suits Nos.553/2023, 1351/2023
and Suit No.B-55/2022 are pending before this Court; that IO has filed interim
challan wherein he has given findings that case under section 395, PPC has not
been made out against the applicants, whereas, remaining sections applied in
the FIR are punishable for three years and does not come within the ambit of
prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.PC. Moreover, learned trial Court has
granted pre-arrest bail to co-accused Raja Haider Ilyas and Muhammad Siddique
Khan and the case of present applicants/accused is on better footings, hence
rule of consistency is applied in this case, therefore, applicants/accused are
admitted to post arrest bail, subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand) each and P.R. bond in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. Needless
to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature,
the same would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the
applicant/accused on merits.
8. Instant
criminal bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS