ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Cr. Bail Appln: No.S-126 of 2015.

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

04.05.2015.

Mr. Aslam Pervez Khan, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Abbasi, DDPP.

===

MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO,J- The applicant has prayed for bail in crime No. 104 of 2014registered at P.S. B-Section Latifabad under sections 23-A Sindh Arms Act, 2013.

2. As per facts of the case, the applicant was arrested on 13.8.2014 from Bismillah city Park Unit No.10 Latifabad Hyderabad by the complainant ASI Shah Biran of P.S. B-Section, Latifabad Hyderabad on spy information received from the complainant of main crime bearing No.102/2014 registered under sections 395 and 397, PPC at P.S. B-Section Latifabad. It is alleged that one T.T. pistol of 9 MM with black plastic patti with rubbed number and magazine containing 4 live bullets was recovered from the applicant. Along with the present applicant, co-accused Shahbaz was arrested and from him 30 bore pistol with 4 live bullets in its magazine was also recovered. Such mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared at the spot and they were brought at police station where different cases bearing crime Nos.102,103 and 104/2014 for the offences under section 395, 397 PPC and 23-A Sindh Arms Act, 2013 were registered against them.

3. Mr. Aslam Pervez, learned counsel for the applicant has mainly argued that applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant on the basis of enmity. He further contends that in the main case bearing No.102 of 2014 under section 395 and 397, PPC, the applicant has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Bail Applications No.S-279 and 202 of 2015 vide order dated 17.3.2015. He has also contended that affidavits have been sworn in by the mashirs of the case stating that the applicant was not arrested before them and no incriminating article was recovered in their presence. He next states that the applicant/accused is behind the bar since 13.8.2014 and so far no progress has been made in the trial; moreover, since chalan has already been submitted before the trial Court, the applicant is no more required for further investigation.

4. Learned DDPP appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that the applicant is nominated in the F.I.R. and the offence carries punishment for more than 10 years.

5. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

6. The applicant was not only arrested in the present case but in F.I.R. No.102/2014 registered at the instance of complainant namely Muhammad Rizwan, but said F.I.R. it appears from the record was registered against the applicant after delay of 20 days. Considering the delay in recording the F.I.R, this Court granted bail to the present applicant by holding that the case against applicant was one of further inquiry, vide order dated 17.3.2015. No doubt, present case carries punishment for more than 10 years, but quantum of punishment which an offence carries cannot be considered to be a ground for refusing the bail to the accused, if otherwise his case appears to be one of further inquiry. I am of the view that since applicant has already been granted bail by this Court in main case and the mashirs in whose presence it is alleged that one TT pistol was recovered from his possession have sworn affidavits denying the recovery from applicant, his case calls for further inquiry in terms of section 497(i), Cr.P.C. The applicant cannot be allowed to riot in jail for indefinite period, as though the applicant was arrested in August, 2014, but so far no progress has been made by the prosecution in the trial despite the witnesses cited are police officials whose presence can be procured easily.

7. In view of above, I am of the view that applicant has been able to make out a case for bail. Accordingly, he is granted bail subject to furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000/-(Rupees one hundred thousand) and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

JUDGE.