IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 1621 of 2017

Muhammad Rashid…………………..…………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

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

Date of Hearing & Order : 16.11.2017

Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq, advocate for the applicant

Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, DPG

O R D E R

.-.-.-.-.-.

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: Through the instant bail application, the applicant is seeking his release on bail during trial in a case initiated out of FIR No.351/2013 registered under Section 23 (1) A of Sindh Arms Act 2013 at PS Kalri, Karachi.

2. Allegation against the applicant is that he was arrested on 25.12.2013 and an unlicenced TT pistol was recovered from his possession during routine patrolling in the area by a police party.

3. The applicant after arrest, was released on bail by trial Court and during trial, the applicant became absconder and remained fugitive of law for a couple of years.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely involved in the instant case. According to him, applicant was earlier released on bail by learned trial Court on the ground that alleged weapon was sent for FSL report after delay of 03 days. As far as abstention of the applicant is concerned, he submits that the applicant could not appear before trial Court due to the circumstances beyond his control. He points out that at that time, situation in Lyari was so worst and in certain parts, the houses of people of rival groups or different communities were targeted and looted. According to him, the applicant is one of those sufferers due to which he had to shift alongwith his family to Punjab and now when normal situation is restored, he returned back and as soon as he reached in his locality, he was arrested.

5. Learned DPG opposed the instant bail application on the ground that the applicant remained absconder for a long time.

6. In the existing position of affairs, I am of the view that abstention of the applicant has been properly explained as certain applications were moved to SHO concerned which are annexed with instant bail application incidents in which it is stated that house of the applicant was looted by rival party as such the applicant has succeeded to make out a case for bail.

7. Accordingly the applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each out of which one surety be furnished by closed relative of the applicant and PR bonds in the like amount to the entire satisfaction of trial Court.

8. However, if the applicant misuses the concession of bail or fails to appear before trial Court, then trial Court is empowered to take every action against the applicant as well as surety including cancellation of bail without making reference to this Court.

J U D G E