ORDER SHEET
_____________________________________________________
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
_____________________________________________________
1) For orders on M.A. 2424/2007.
2) For hearing.
31.8.2007.
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed for applicant.
Mr. Fazlur Rehman Awan State counsel.
______
1) Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2) Applicant Muhammad Bilal Farooqui has applied for post arrest bail in Crime No. 69/2005 under Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act 1908 registered at P.S. CID Gulistan-e-Jauhar Area. His bail plea was rejected by Ist Additional Sessions Judge East Karachi, therefore, he has preferred the present application for redress.
Precisely the facts leading to the case are that complainant ASI Riaz Ahmed Gujar lodged report that in connection with investigation of Crime No. 66/2005 and Crime No. 68/2005 the applicant was arrested from Kamran Chourangi Gulistan-e-Johar on 7th June 2005, on his personal search one live hand grenade from the side pocket of the shirt was secured therefore the applicant was booked in the commission of the offence.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the accused has been arrested from the populated area yet not a single person from the vicinity was picked up as mashir of the recovery. The applicant is behind the bars from the last two years. The prosecution has failed to examine even single witness at trial in the absence of sanction required under Section 7 of the Explosive Act therefore the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail.
Mr. Fazlur Rehman Awan has contended that the requisite sanction has been received from the competent authority therefore a direction to the trial Court for expeditious completion of the case would meet the ends of justice.
I have considered the arguments advanced at bar, perused the record of the case. It appears that the applicant is confined in jail from the last two years, although the recovery of hand grenade in active condition has been suggested in First Information Report and charge sheet, yet expert report is not available. It also transpires that the applicant has committed offence at the best punishable either with three years or with fine of Rs. 30,000/- in view of the amendment in Ordinance C-5 of 2002 Explosive Amendment Ordinance 2002. The prosecution has miserably failed to produce evidence, therefore I am of the view that the hardship faced by the applicant bringing the case requiring probe into the guilt of the accused.
The applicant is hereby admitted on bail subject to furnishing one solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
J U D G E