IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 1605 of 2016

Syed Ali Hassan Zaidi…….……………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

The State……………………………….…………..……………….Respondent

Date of hearing and order : 17.07.2017

Syed Ali Kausar Shah, Advocate for applicant

Ms. Rahad Ehsan, A.P.G.

O R D E R

Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: This order will dispose of the captioned bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Syed Ali Hassan Zaidi who is involved in FIR No. 84/2012 of PS Brigade, Karachi under Section 324 PPC. Prior to filing the instant bail application, his request for release on bail was declined by the trial court by order dated 10-09-2016.

2. The allegations against the applicant are that he along with his co-accused fired upon a person, namely Sultan son of Haider Ali due to which he received injuries on the vital part of his body. The incident was later on reported by the complainant Imran, who is the brother of the injured.

3. While pressing the instant bail application, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. According to him, in the FIR no one is nominated and the applicant was arrested on 20-03-2014 and after 10 days of his arrest, an identification parade was held and he was implicated in this case falsely. He submits that identification parade lost its credibility as it was held after two years of the incident and 10 days after the arrest of the applicant. He points out that the applicant and complainant as well as injured are residents of the same locality, as such implication of the applicant after such a long time creates a greater doubt. According to him, the applicant is involved due to political rivalry and nothing was recovered from his possession after his arrest. He submits that a slightest doubt is sufficient to admit the applicant to bail. He relies upon PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34.

4. Conversely, the learned APG opposes the instant bail application by submitting that the applicant was initially arrested in another case, which is a murder case and is being tried before the Antiterrorism Court. He submits that the applicant is involved in a series of similar cases. According to him, a pistol was recovered from his possession and the empties recovered from the scene of offence are matched with the pistol recovered from the applicant. He points out that the applicant is involved in the murder of a member of the provincial assembly and so many renowned religious scholars. He submits that the marginal witnesses of the arrest of applicants are private witnesses and the prosecution witnesses have fully implicated the applicant in their 161 Cr.P.C., statements.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced and also scanned the available record with the assistance of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned APG provided to me during the course of arguments. The applicant is involved in a case of serious nature. The injured received firearm injuries on the vital parts of his body. After the arrest in this case, the applicant in the presence of witnesses has rightly pointed out the place of incident, where he, along with his associates, allegedly fired upon the injured Sultan with intention to murder him. The injured has identified the applicant during an identification test parade held before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The empties recovered from the place of incident were sent to FSL and later on the same were matched with the pistol recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is involved in several other similar cases and the learned counsel for the applicant could not bring anything on the record to establish any animosity of the applicant with police or complainant party; therefore, a strong presumption is available against the applicant regarding his involvement in the incidents of target killings. In this position of affairs, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has collected sufficient material against the applicant. With these observations, the instant bail application is dismissed.

6. Before parting, I would like to make it clear that the above observations are tentative in nature, as such the trial court is directed to remain stupor of the same at the time of trial, which should be proceeded purely on merit.

The above are the reasons for my short order dated 17-07-2017.

J U D G E