IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 956 of 2018

Usman Ali………………………...………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

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

Date of hearing & Order : 27.08.2018

Mr. Muhammad Jawaid, advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, DPG for State.

O R D E R

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: The applicant has move instant bail application for his release on bail during pendency of trial. He is involved in a criminal case registered against him by lodging FIR No. 95/2018 at PS Taimuria, Karachi under Section 23(1)(A) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013.

Learned counsel for applicant while pressing instant bail application, submits that applicant was already taken into custody by rangers authorities and on very day, mother of applicant moved application before higher authorities and such fact is mentioned by learned trial Court while dismissing bail application of applicant. According to him, recovered ammunition as well as mobile phone are foisted upon applicant just to involve him in instant false case. He submits that in theft case, applicant has already succeeded in getting bail.

Learned Prosecutor opposes bail application on the ground that applicant is involved not only keeping illicit weapon but also in a case of theft of motor bike. Regarding mobile phone recovered from applicant, he submits that it is also snatched by him.

I have heard the arguments advanced and perused the relevant record. Allegation against applicant is that during patrolling, he was apprehended and a rifle 222 bore as well as stolen motorcycle were recovered and he could produce licence of recovered weapon as such he was booked in this case. Incident is said to be taken place in the mid of town where complainant/ police party can easily arrange private witnesses but no such effort is available on record. Contention of learned counsel that mother of applicant had sent an application finds support from order of trial Court. Applicant is on bail in theft case and not required in any other case at the moment.

In view of above observations, it is my tentative opinion that the applicant is entitled for bail, therefore, instant bail application is granted and the applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with PR bond in the like amount to the entire satisfaction of trial Court. 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.

I would like to make it clear that above observations are tentative in nature and have been made only for deciding instant bail application and same would have no effect or impact upon the case of either party during trial.

J U D G E