ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-528 of 2012.
|
DATE OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE |
FOR HEARING.
11.12.2012.
Mr. Ansari Shakeel Ahmed advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Abdul Rasheed Soomro, State Counsel.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-
NAIMTULLAH PHULPOTO, J- Applicant/accused Dilmurad alias Kuraro Mahar seeks bail in Crime No.104/2012 registered at Police Station Staurt Ganj, Shikarpur on 22.10.2012 for offences punishable under sections 401, 324, 353, 34, PPC & 13(d) Arms Ordinance.
Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that on 22.10.2012, ASI Manzoor Ahmed Shar left Police Station along with his sub ordinate staff for patrolling, when police party reached near Anaj Mandi, where ASI received spy information that notorious dacoit Ayaz son of Muhammad Akram Shar, Dilmurad alias Kuraro Mahar and one unidentified person were present at Manchhur Shah graveyard for committing dacoitee. On such information, police party proceeded at pointed place and saw on the headlight of the vehicle that three persons were standing on the road. They started firing upon the police party and police party also fired in their self defense. Firing continued for ten minutes. Thereafter police caught hold of one accused and remaining two made their escape good. The accused who was arrested disclosed his name as Dilmurad alias Kuraro Mahar. One T.T pistol of unlicensed was also recovered from his possession. Thereafter accused and case property were brought to Police Station, where FIR on behalf of State was lodged.
After usual investigation, challan was submitted under the above such sections. Bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, the same was rejected vide orders dated 26.11.2012. Thereafter, the applicant approached to this Court.
Mr. Ansari Shakeel Ahmed, learned advocate for the applicant/accused has mainly contended that despite cross firing with the sophisticated weapons, no one received any injury. Prosecution case is highly doubtful. Ingredients of section 324, PPC are yet to be determined at the trial. He has submitted that investigation is complete. The accused is no more required for the purposes of investigation. Case is challaned. All the P.Ws are police officials, there is no question of tampering with the evidence. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the cases of Muhammad versus The State 1998 SCMR 454 and Muhammad Akbar versus State 2011 P.Cr.L.J 1012.
Mr. Abdul Rasheed Soomro, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that the name of the applicant transpires in the FIR and one T.T pistol was recovered from his possession. He has further submitted that there is huge evidence against the applicant to connect him in the commission of the offence.
From the perusal of the FIR, 161 Cr.P.C statements, it transpire that there was cross firing for about ten minutes but no one received any injury from either side, even scratch was not caused to the P.Ws. Apparently, prosecution story appears to be unnatural. Application of section 324, 401, PPC is yet to be determined at the trial. It is pointed out by the learned State Counsel that investigation has been completed and challan has been submitted and the applicant is no more required for investigation. As all the P.Ws are police officials, there is no question of tampering with the evidence. The case against the applicant/accused therefore, requires further enquiry as contemplated under sub section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, concession of bail is extended to the applicant subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees. One lac only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Needless to mention here that the learned trial Court shall not be influenced by observation made in this order while deciding the case of the applicant as the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature.
Judge