ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Criminal Bail Application No.S-332 of 2015

Date of hearing:                               02.01.2017.

Date of decision:                              02.01.2017.

Applicant:                                            Umer Moosa through Syed Ghulam Hyder Shah Advocate.

Respondent:                                      The State through Mr. Lutfullah Arain D.A.G. along with complainant ASI Sabir Hussain Gopang PS Sakrand.

O R D E R

KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, J: - Through captioned application, the applicant seeks post arrest bail in crime No.21 / 2015 of PS Sakrand under section 14 of Foreigners Act.

2.         In nutshell accusation is that on 10.02.2015, complainant ASI Sabir Hussain along with subordinate staff received spy information regarding presence of Afghan Nationals, reached at the pointed place and apprehended persons including the applicant / accused, who failed to produce any visa or permit to be in Pakistan, therefore, a case under section 14 of Foreigners Act, was registered.

3.         Syed Ghulam Hyder Shah, learned counsel for applicant argued that the applicant is Pakistani national and possessing Computerized National Identity Card duly signed and issued by the NADRA authorities and photo copy of same has been annexed with the bail application; that nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicant / accused by the Investigating Officer to show that he is Afghani National; that the applicant belongs to Pathan community of Pakistan and having his place of residence in Pakistan, thus, he has got every right to live and work everywhere in Pakistan. Learned counsel has cited cases of ‘ISHTIAQ KHAN v. THE STATE’ (2009 Y L R 441), ‘MUHAMMAD MIZAN v. THE STATE’ (1997 M L D 279) and ‘MUHAMMAD ASHRAF v. THE STATE’ (2003 M L D 165). Co-accused have already been admitted to post arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 05.06.2015. Learned counsel also submits that the case of the applicant / accused is at par to that of co-accused who have already been released on bail, rule of consistency is applicable in the case and applicant / accused is entitled to be admitted to bail.

4.         As against this, learned D.A.G. is not in a position to controvert the arguments advanced by learned counsel for applicant / accused, however, half-heartedly opposed the bail plea of the applicant / accused.

5.         Perusal of record transpires that the annexure-G available at page-35 has got verified from the NADRA authorities, who submitted report that same is genuine and issued in the name of applicant and the case of applicant / accused is on same footings to that of co-accused, who have already been released on bail by this Court and rule of consistency is fully applicable with the present case. In this respect reliance can be placed in the case of ‘MUHAMMAD FAZAL alias BODI v. THE STATE (1979 SCMR 9). Under these circumstances, applicant / accused is entitled for same concession, therefore, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two hundred thousand only) and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.

JUDGE

*Abdullah Channa/P.S*