IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application Nos.1134, 1228, 1241, 1268, 1296, 1322 and 1502 of 2023
Criminal Bail Application No. 1134 of 2023
Fahad vs. The State
Criminal Bail Application No. 1228 of 2023
Bilal Aslam vs. The State
Criminal Bail Application No. 1241 of 2023
Syed Imran Zaidi vs. The State
Criminal Bail Application No. 1268 of 2023
Muhammad Liaquat vs. The State
Criminal Bail Application No. 1296 of 2023
Muhammad Mubashir Hafizullah vs. The State
Criminal Bail Application No. 1322 of 2023
Muhammad Rafique vs. The State
Criminal Bail Application No. 1502 of 2023
Naveed Ashraf vs. The State
15.08.2023
M/s Noor-ul-Haq Qureshi, Khan Zaman, Maqbool-ur-Rehman, Sathi M. Ishaq, S. K. Lodhi, Khawaja Saiful Islam, Muhammad Iqbal, Zahooruddin Mehsood, Muhammad Ibrar Arain, Rahman Dino Mahesar, Shiraz Ahmed Siddiqui, Zahida Kanwal, Muzafar H. Solangi, Naveed Ashraf, Mehjabeen Rajput, Benish Mehboob, Muhammad Abrar Arain, Muhammad Iqrar, Saima Naseem, advocates for the applicants
Syed Meeral Shah, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh a/w PI Tariq Ali, IO of FIR No.156/2023 & PI Ali Khan Sanjrani, IO of FIR No.211/2023
--------------------------------------------------
Naimatullah Phulpoto, J.- Applicants/accused Fahad, Bilal Aslam, Muhammad Ali, Syed Imran Zaidi, Muhammad Liaquat, Muhammad Rafique, Naveed Ashraf and Muhammad Mubashir Hafizullah seek post arrest bail in Crime No.156/2023 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 337-A(i), 353, 186, 435 PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Previously, applicants/accused applied for bail before learned trial Court, the same was rejected vide order dated 20.05.2023. Thereafter, the applicants/accused have approached this Court by filing separate bail applications for the same relief. By this single order, we intend to decide the aforesaid bail applications.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid bail applications are that on 10.05.2023, SIP Syed Imtiaz Hussain left P.S Tipu Sultan along with his subordinate staff for patrolling. He received information that about 800/1000 PTI workers/accused led by MPA Haleem Adil Sheikh and others were protesting at Shahrah-e-Faisal on the arrest of Imran Khan, Chairman PTI. Police party proceeded there and found applicants/accused, who were armed with dandas. It is further alleged that applicants/accused caused damage to the vehicles, committed violence upon the police party and used petrol bomb in the incident. It is stated that PC Adnan sustained injury. FIR of the incident was lodged on behalf of state under the above referred sections.
3. Learned advocates for the applicants/accused, mainly contended that it was the mob of 800/1000 persons, who were protesting for the release of Imran Khan, Chairman PTI. It is further argued that the allegations against the applicants/accused are of general in nature; the applicants/accused were not arrested at the spot; there was no recovery of incriminating article from any of applicants/accused at the time of arrest; that it was the case of pick and choose by police for political reasons; yet accused nominated in FIR have not been arrested by police. Lastly, it is submitted that applicants/accused are in custody for more than three months and interim challan has already been submitted and the applicants/accused are no more required for investigation. In support of their contentions, reliance is placed on the case of Syed Amanullah Shah vs. the State & another (PLD 1996 SC 241)
4. Syed Meeral Shah, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, argued that applicants/accused had caused damage to the Government property; the PWs have implicated them in commission of offence; that case is a fresh one. Additional P.G. opposed the bail applications.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.
6. From the perusal of the material placed before us, it appears there are no reasonable grounds for believing that applicants/accused have committed the alleged offences for the reasons that incident was committed by about 800/1000 persons led by MPA Haleem Adil Sheikh. Neither the names of the applicants/accused are mentioned in the FIR nor their description. After arrest applicants/accused were not put to identification parade. Allegations against the applicants/accused are generalized in nature; the particulars of the vehicles which were damaged are not mentioned; injury sustained by PC Adnan Aziz has also not been specifically attributed to any of the applicant and the main accused nominated in the FIR yet have not been arrested. It is also argued that this is a case of pick and choose and applicants/accused are victims of political rivalry. Ingredients of the offences in which the applicants have been challaned, yet are to be determined at trial. At this stage, reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of the accused persons in the crime. In the case of Syed Amanullah Shah versus the State and another (P L D 1996 Supreme Court 241) the Supreme Court has held that:
5. .. So whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail. Freedom of an individual is a precious right. Personal liberty granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction should not be snatched away from accused unless it becomes necessary to deprive him of his liberty under the law. Where story of prosecution does not appear to be probable, bail may be granted so that further inquiry may be made into guilt of the accused.
7. Investigating Officer submits that applicants/accused are no more required for investigation as interim report has already been submitted before the competent Court of law. In such a situation, it would be better to keep an accused person on bail then in the jail, during the trial.
8. Prima facie, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants/accused have committed the alleged offences but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt. Resultantly, concession of bail is extended to applicants/accused Fahad, Bilal Aslam, Muhammad Ali, Syed Imran Zaidi, Muhammad Liaquat, Muhammad Rafique, Naveed Ashraf and Muhammad Mubashir Hafizullah, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. Needless to mention here that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same while deciding the case of the applicants/accused on merits.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS