ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Crl. Bail Appln. No.D-27 of 2024

Date Order with signature of Hon’ble Judge

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of Bail Application.

Mr. Sohail Ahmed Veesar, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing : 26.08.2024.

O R D E R

Abdul Mobeen Lakho, J.- Applicant Badar alias Badroo son of Jaro Khan Veesar has filed this application seeking post arrest bail in crime No.83 of 2024, registered at Police Station Ratodero, for offence under Sections 324, 353, 427, 148, 149, PPC read with Sections 6/7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, after rejection of his bail plea by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana vide order dated 10.7.2024.

2. The background to this case is that on 01-6-2024, SIP Muhammad Siddique Brohi lodged the aforementioned F.I.R. narrating therein that a police party led by him being on patrolling, on a tip-off, spotted 18 armed persons of Jalbani Community on one side and 15 persons of Veesar Community on another side at Naudero Bypass of Ratodero Town, who were all armed with firearms, were making cross-firing over each other thereby creating bad law and order situation there and on being alerted and restrained by the police, both parties fired upon the police party, which was retaliated by the police in self-defence and this cross-firing lasted for about 10 minutes, whereafter the culprits made their escape good and the police found their mobile van having been hit at both sides of it’s carrier by two bullets on each side; hence, the complainant registered such FIR on behalf of State.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned DPG for the State and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has focused his arguments on the fact that the alleged encounter never actually happened and that it is unbelievable that in spite of the shootout between the police and the armed accused persons, no member of police party or the accused, who were in large number of about 33, received any injury or scratch. He submitted that the applicant has been falsely involved in this case; that there is general allegation against all the accused persons and no specific role is assigned to the applicant; that the applicant was also implicated in somewhat similar case by the same police officer/complainant vide Crime No.29/21023, PS Ratodero, u/s 324, 353, 224, 225, 148, 149, PPC read with Sections 6/7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, wherein he was acquitted after full-dressed trial; that co-accused Ghulam Abbas and Wahid Bux, who are not nominated in the FIR, have been granted bail by the learned trial Court; that there is no past criminal record of the applicant and last that the case has been cahallaned and the applicant is not required to police for any investigation.

5. Conversely, the learned DPG opposed the bail application, merely on the ground that the police officials have no enmity with the applicant to falsely involve him in this case.

6. Surprisingly, despite 10 minutes’ cross-firing between 33 culprits and 07 members of police party, nobody from either side sustained any injury or even any scratch to attract Section 324, PPC and only police van was hit. As far as Section 353, PPC is concerned, same due to non-availability of any injury sustained by any member of police party or even the accused, is yet to be established by the prosecution. Admittedly, there is general allegation against all the accused persons and no specific role is assigned to the applicant. Learned DPG does not deny the fact that the applicant having been implicated earlier by the same police officer/complainant in Crime No.29/2023, PS Ratodero, u/s 324, 353, 224, 225, 148, 149, PPC read with Sections 6/7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was acquitted after full-dressed trial, which is indicative of ill-will on the part of police against the applicant. Co-accused Ghulam Abbas and Wahid Bux, though not named in the FIR, have also been granted bail by the learned trial Court. Learned DPG also admitted that there is no past criminal record of the applicant. The case has already been challaned and the applicant is not required by police in connection with investigation. Whether the police encounter was a genuine one is yet to be proved at trial after evidence is led. Upon a tentative assessment of the record, it appears that the case against the applicant requires further enquiry as envisaged under sub-section (2) to Section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, it would be safe to enlarge the applicant on bail pending trial. The bail application therefore is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

JUDGE