IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.855 of 2025
[
Waqar Ahmed son of Umeed Ali versus The State ]
Criminal Bail Application No.856 of 2025
[ Waqar Ahmed son of Umeed Ali
versus The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH SIGNATUREs
OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail applications
------------------------------------------
07.05.2025
Mr. Habib-ur-Rehman
Jiskani, advocate for applicant
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh
------------------------------------
Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.—Applicant/accused Waqar Ahmed
son of Umeed Ali seeks post arrest bail in FIR No.310/2024 for offence under
Sections 395, 397, 34, PPC and FIR
No.426/2024, for offence under section 23(1)(a) of
the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, both registered at P.S. Mochko,
Karachi, after rejection of his bail plea by learned IV Additional Sessions
Judge Karachi West vide orders dated 10.01.2025.
2. Brief facts
of the case are that on 09.12.2024 at about 0250 hours, ASI Muhammad Akhtar along with his subordinate officials, while on
investigation duty of Crime No.310/2024 for offence under Sections 395, 397,
34, PPC, received information through a mobile phone call that accused persons
nominated in the said crime were present at the address mentioned in column
No.4 of FIR; when police party reached at the pointed place, accused persons
while seeing the police tried to escape away, however, due to high speed of
motorcycle one person fell down, who was apprehended and from his possession a
Rifle bearing No.PAC-9903, with
loaded magazine, containing 9 live rounds, was recovered. He disclosed his name
as Waqar Ahmed son of Umeed
Ali. He was arrested in presence of police officials and was taken to police
station along with recovered weapon where FIR under above referred section was
registered on behalf of State.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in these cases due to mala fide intentions and ulterior
motives; there is nothing on record which connects the applicant with the
alleged offence; he is not nominated in FIR No.310/2024; no identification
parade test has been held and the only piece of evidence against the applicant
is extra-judicial confession, which is inadmissible in Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
4. On the
other hand, learned Addl: Prosecutor General Sindh
opposed for grant of bail to applicant, however, she admits that there is
nothing on record against the applicant, except extra-judicial confession
before the police.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh and perused
the material available on record.
6. Admittedly,
applicant is not nominated in the FIR No.310/2024 for offence under Sections
395, 397, 34, PPC, he was arrested on 09.12.2024 but no identification parade
test has been conducted; that there is nothing incriminating material recovered
from possession of applicant, except Rifle bearing No.PAC-9903. In the case of ZIAUL REHMAN V/S THE STATE
(2000 SCMR 528) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
extra-judicial confession alone without any corroboration is not sufficient to
maintain any conviction thereon. In the case of Molana
ABDUL AZIZ V/S THE STATE (2009 SCMR 1210) the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that if sufficient incriminating is lacking prima facie
connecting the accused with the commission of alleged offence, concession of
bail can be extended in favour of applicant.
Presumption of innocence of accused is always paramount, irrespective of
heinousness of alleged offence, consequently, the
accused was admitted to bail. In another case of HAJI MUHAMMAD NAZIR V/S
THE STATE (2008 SCMR 807) it is held that bail does not mean acquittal of
accused but only change of custody from government agencies to the sureties,
who on furnishing bond take responsibility to produce the accused whenever and
wherever he is required to be produced. Sufficient
material is available on record which makes out a case of applicant for further
inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC. Therefore,
the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail, subject to his furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred
Thousand) in each case, and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court.
7. Needless
to mention here that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and
would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS