IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Application No.S-309 of 2018
Applicant: Parwaiz Ahmed son of Ahmed Khan Hazara, Through Mr.Makhdhoom Syed Tahir Abbas Shah, Advocate
Respondent: The State Through Mr. Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi A.P.G and Mr.Abdul Rasheed Abro,
Assistant Attorney General.
Date of hearing : 23.07.2018
Date of order : 23.07.2018
O R D E R
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant application are that the police party of P.S Dhamrah, led by SIP Lashkar Khan Luhur, when was on patrolling came to know through spy information that few persons are digging earth adjacent to village Soomar Khan Chandio to break opening the pipeline of PARCO with intention to commit theft. On such information, the said police party proceeded to the pointed place, there the police personnel allegedly were deterred by the applicant and others from discharging their duty as public servants by making fires at them within intention to commit their murder. The police personnel also fired at the applicant and others in self defence, eventually, the applicant and co-accused Shah Fahad were apprehended by the police and from them were secured unlicensed pistols, while rest of the culprits made their escape good. On search from the applicant was secured Rs.50,000/- and from co-accused Shah Fahad were secured Rs.10,000/-. From the place of incident it is said was secured by police a Truck containing oil tank, a Car and two Belchas, for that the present case was registered.
2. On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned trial Court, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 497 Cr.PC.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely; he has already been acquitted in case relating to recovery of unlicensed pistol; the very case on remand has been fixed for framing of fresh charge by learned trial Court; the applicant is in custody for more than a year, it is case of hardship; co-accused Samandar Ali has already been admitted to bail. By contending so, he sought for release of applicant on bail on point of further enquiry. In support of his contention he placed his reliance upon case of Gul Muhammad & Ors vs. The State (2010 P.Cr.LJ-340) and photo stat copy of order dated 01.06.2018 of this Court passed in Crl.B.A.No.S0154/2018 and Crl.B.A.No.177/2018.
4. Learned A.P.G and learned Assistant Attorney General have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that the offence which he allegedly has committed is affecting the society at large.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. There is no independent witness though the police party was having advance information of the incident, which appears to be significant, the allegation of firing appears to be doubtful as it proved to be ineffective in all respect though the same allegedly continued for about 10 minutes, no damage was found to have been caused to oil pipeline by police at the time of incident; nothing was stolen away; the present applicant has already been acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction for being in possession of unlicensed pistol; the case on remand as per learned counsel for the applicant now is fixed for framing of fresh charge by learned trial Court, if it is so then conclusion of the case is likely to take some time; the applicant is in custody for more than one year; it is case of hardship even otherwise. In these premises, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail as his case is calling for further enquiry.
7. In view of above and while lying upon the case law which is referred by learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
8. The instant application is disposed of accordingly.
J U D G E