ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 568 of 2018

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application

1. For orders on office objection at flag ‘A’

2. For hearing of bail application

15.10.2018

Mr. Achar Khan Gabole, Advocate for the Applicant

Mir Afzal Hussain Talpur, APG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<

Through instant application under Section 497, Cr.P.C, the applicant/accused Trooh alias Wali Dinoi Jagirani has sought post-arrest bail in offence punishable under Section 23(i) A Sindh Arms Act 2013 arising out of Crime No.37 of 2018 registered with police station, Jhangro, District Sukkur.

2. The facts of the prosecution case as per FIR lodged on 12.09.2018 at about 2100 hours by ASI Anwer Ali Bullo at police station Jhangro on behalf of the State, are that on the day of incident, he along with his subordinate staff namely PC Abdul Wahid, PC Asif Ali duly armed with service weapons in police vehicle No.SPC-896 along with DPC Muhammad Ibrahim as per roznamcha entry No.10 dated 12.09.2018 at about 1900 hours left the police station for patrolling in the jurisdiction, after patrolled at different points, when he reached on the road leading towards Marri near fish form, where they saw on the vehicle light one person coming in the opposite direction who on seeing the police mobile tried to escape but was apprehended while using the tactic, it was 2000 hours, due to non-availability of private mashirs PC Abdul Wahid and PC Asif Ali were appointed mashirs and thereafter his personal search was conducted and from his fold of Shalwar one T.T Pistol of 30 bore was recovered containing 05 live bullets in its magazine. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Tooh alias Wali Dino S/o Faiz Muhammad Jagirani, and disclosed that it is without license, on further search two currency notes of Rs.50 each total R.100 were secured from him. Thereafter the apprehended accused along with recovered weapon was brought at police station and such F.I.R was lodged as stated above.

Learned counsel contended that the applicant/accused is innocent and the alleged Pistol and the bullets have been foisted upon him, whereas, the witnesses cited in the present case are police officials and they are subordinates of the complainant, because the complainant has not bothered to associate any independent person from the place of incident which is a populated area. He further contended that as per FIR even though applicant was armed with pistol and the police party chased and apprehended him but very surprising that he did not retaliate, infact the applicant was arrested at the influence of some person and thereafter the weapon was foisted upon him, the mala fides and ulterior motives on the part of complainant party cannot be ruled out. The section under which the applicant/accused is involved does not fall within the prohibitory clause, hence the case of the applicant requires further enquiry. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases of Anwar Khan v. The State ( 2014 Y L R 1573); and Abdul Rehman v. The State (2014 Y L R 2083).

3. Learned APG appearing for the State opposed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused on the ground that the T.T.Pistol along with 05 live bullets have been recovered from the specific possession of the applicant and the offence with which the applicant has been charged carried punishment upto 14 years, hence he is not entitled for the concession of bail.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, as well as learned APG for the State and have perused the record. Admittedly, as per FIR the alleged incident has taken place on a populated area on a road, which is being used by the public and both the P.Ws are police officials, whereas, the presence of the independent persons at the scene of offence cannot be ruled out, but even then the complainant has not bothered to associate any independent person from the locality to act as eye-witness or mashir of the recovery. The case has been challaned and the applicant/accused is no more required for the purpose of investigation. All witnesses are police officials hence there is no probability of tempering with the prosecution evidence if the applicant is released on bail. As far as the contention of learned APG that the punishment of the offence under which the present applicant/accused is challaned is upto 14 years, it is suffice to say that this is no ground to retain the applicant/accused behind the bars for an indefinite period and the bail cannot be declined as punishment. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant/accused is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The above observations are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the time of trial.

Judge

ARBROHI