ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No.D-45 of 2013.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE.

29.01.2014.

Present:

Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi,

Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Goarar,

1. For orders on M. A. No.2243/2013.

2. For hearing.

Mr. Shahbaz Ali M. Brohi, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani, Asst. Prosecutor General.

O R D E R.

Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J.- Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 06.8.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur in Crl. Bail Application No.28/2013, filed in Special Case No.10/2013, arising from crime No.55/2013, registered at Police Station New Foujdari, Shikarpur, under Sections 302, 324, 353, 395, 148, 149, 109, PPC read with Sections 6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, wheeby the bail application of the applicant was dismissed, the applicant has filed this bail application under Section 497, Cr.P.C read with Section 21-D of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, seeking his release on bail on his furnishing surety.

2. Brief facts as stated in the F.I.R are that one Sikandar son of Abdul Kareem Junejo was confined at District Jail, Shikarpur in connection with crime No.07/2013 of PS New Foujdari, under Sections 365-B, 148, 149, PPC and the F.I.R of that case was quashed by a Division Bench of this Court at Karachi in C. P. No.D-616/2013, vide order dated 20.3.2013 in the light of statement of alleged abductee girl Mst. Sameena recorded by the I.O. in Court at Karachi. As result of quashment of proceedings of the said case, accused Sikandar Junejo was ordered to be released from jail. However, since accused Sikandar Junejo had moved application before the concerned Magistrate for providing proper protection/escort from the jail upto his village, therefore, on 26.3.2013, complainant of this case, namely, ASI Javed Mohammad Abro of PS New Foujdari, Shikarpur, under the orders of the III-Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, accompanied Sikandar Junejo from District Jail, Shikarpur alongwith his staff, so also relatives of accused Sikandar, named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that before departure from jail premises applicant/accused Hakim Ali Luhur, who was posted as Constable in the said prison, was seen by the complainant ASI Javed Mohammad Abro communicating information to someone regarding release of Sikandar Junejo over mobile phone. It is alleged that when they reached at the old bridge of Sindh Canal, situated on Sukkur Road of Shikarpur town, 20/25 armed persons intercepted them, out of whom 17 were identified, who got down Sikandar Junejo and killed him by making fires upon him and they also fired at P.C Ali Shah at his left foot and then went away.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant, who is serving in Police Department, has been falsely implicated in the crime at the behest of complainant party, whereas no overt role has been assigned to the applicant in the commission of the alleged crime. Per learned Counsel, the only allegation against the applicant is that one of the prosecution witness has seen him talking on mobile whereby information regarding release of the deceased, namely, Sikandar Ali Junejo from jail was communicated to the complainant party, however, neither any data of mobile phone has been collected by the prosecution nor any independent witness has corroborated such prosecution story. It is further contended that the applicant was not even present at the place of incident, who is being unnecessarily dragged in the instant proceedings. Per learned Counsel, the applicant has no previous record whereas there is no apprehension that if he is released on bail, he will abscond as he is serving in the Jail Police. It has been prayed that the applicant may be released on bail subject to furnishing surety, failing which the entire career of the applicant would be ruined.

4. Conversely, the learned Asst. Prosecutor General has opposed the grant of bail and submits that the name of the applicant has been mentioned in the F.I.R, whereas he has facilitated the alleged crime.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel and perused the record.

6. From the tentative assessment of the record it is seen that the only role which has been assigned to the applicant is that he was found communicating the release of the deceased to complainant party on mobile. However, admittedly prosecution has not produced any material relating to mobile call in the instant matter, which may connect the applicant with the alleged crime, who was not even available at the place of incident which was far away from the District Jail, Shikarpur, where the present applicant is posted. No other incriminating material has been produced by the prosecution, which may connect him with the alleged crime. The applicant has reportedly no previous history and there is no likelihood that if he is released on bail, he will abscond. We are of the view that the matter requires further enquiry. Accordingly, the applicant was granted bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court vide our short order passed today in the morning and these are the reasons for such short order.

JUDGE