IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. D- 10 of 2024.

Present:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar.

Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana.

Applicant: Zain alias Aitbar, through Mr. Dildar Ali Chandio, Advocate.

Respondent: The State, through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing: 12.03.2024.

Date of Order: 12.03.2024.

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J: Through this application, Zain alias Aitbar son of Abdul Sattar Dero has sought for his admission to post-arrest bail in Crime No. 45 of 2023, registered at Police Station Dokri (District Larkana), for offences punishable under Sections 324, 353, 395, 397, 427, 148, 149, 337-H (2), 224, 225, 337-A (i), 337-F(i) P.P.C and Sections 6/7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. His similar request was turned down by learned trial Court firstly vide Order 31.8.2023, and secondly vide order dated 13.01.2024.

2. The facts of prosecution case have been mentioned in impugned order in its para No.2 and for the sake of convenience, that para is reproduced hereunder:

“That, on 04.7.2023 a police party of P.S Dokri headed by ASI Muhammad Rustam Jarwar was on patrolling vide roznamcha entry no.3, at 0830 hours. During patrolling at different places, they reached at Mehran Bakery where spy information received that the absconder accused of Crime No.11 of 2023 and 41 of 2023 of P.S Dokri, namely, Zain alias Aitbar Dero is available near Ali-Park at Dera Muhalla stop, therefore, police party reached at pointed place at 1030 hours and apprehended to required accused, but accused Zain alias Aitbar dero offered resistance and raised cries, therefore, co-accused Nadir armed with kalashnikov, Ali Dino armed with pistol, Zaheen, Ali Hassan, Saleem, Gul Hassan, Ali Muhammad, Fahad, Asif alias Papan, Sahil, Wazir all Dera by caste, resident of Dera Muhalla Dokri came on spot, out of them accused Gul Hassan was armed with repeater and remaining accused were armed with pistols; while 40/50 unknown accused also armed with pistols and lathis as well as 10/15 unknown women having stones and bricks in their hands came. They all made attack upon police party and made straight firing with intention to cause their death. They got released apprehended accused Zain alias Aitbar Dero forcibly from the custody of police. Accused Zain alias Aitbar robbed official kalashnikov with bullets and double magazine from H.C Muhammad Hassan, who put up resistance, therefore, accused Ali Hassan Dero caused him butt blows of pistol on the left side of face and little finger of left side hand. The blood started oozing from his little finger and he fell down, therefore, all accused caused him injuries, whereas accused Fahad Ali seeing to P.C Driver Abdul Rasheed talking on wireless set of official mobile forcibly robbed mike while accused Sahil robbed one mobile phone of Samsung from driver PC Abdul Rasheed and accused Asif alias Papan Dero broken the front glass of official vehicle by causing blow butt of pistol. Thereafter, all accused by making indiscriminate aerial firing upon the police party ran away towards their houses, while spreading terror, fear and harassment among the general public. Then, the police party came at Police station and lodged F.I.R agaisnt the accused persons.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that applicant has been falsely booked in the false case by the police; that all the prosecution witnesses are police personnel and subordinates to the complainant; that it is case of ineffective firing, as none from police party received any injury at the hands of any of the accused; that four co-accused were held innocent during course of investigation and their names were placed in column No.II, but later on they were joined by learned trial Court and that there is no recovery of any incriminating article from possession of applicant, which may connect him with commission of alleged offence. Learned counsel further added that co-accused Asif alias Papan, Fahad Ali and Ali Hassan have been granted bail by this Court vide Order dated 19.11.2023, as such applicant also deserves same concession.

4. Conversely, learned D.P.G. appearing for the State has opposed the bail application by contending that applicant is named in the F.I.R with specific role of snatching an official weapon from a policeman and getting himself released from the lawful custody of police; that the robbed weapon has been recovered from possession of the applicant which connects him with commission of the offence; that ingredients of Sections 353, 324, 395, 397, 224, 225 P.P.C and Sections 6/7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, are fully attracted in the case and that the offences fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore, the applicant do not deserve any concession.

5. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the material available on record. Perusal of record contemplates that applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R with specific role of getting himself released from the custody of police through his co-accused by deterring the police party in performing their lawful duty. Not only this, but applicant while getting himself released from police custody, also robbed official weapon from Head Constable and when the Head Constable offered resistance, the co-accused of applicant caused pistol-butt blows to that Head Constable on his face and finger and ultimately all the culprits made indiscriminating firing at the spot, thereby created terror and insecurity in the area. The alleged act of assault upon State functionary on the part of culprits is of very extreme level, which requires to be dealt with iron hands. Furthermore, after arrest of the applicant, the robbed official weapon has also been recovered from his possession, which prima-facie connects him with commission of the offence. On assessment of material collected by the prosecution it appears that the ingredients of Sections 353, 324, 395, 397, 224, 225 P.P.C and Sections 6/7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, are fully attracted in the case and most of these sections fall within prohibition as contained in Section 497 Cr.P.C. So for as, case of co-accused who have been granted bail by this Court is concerned; their case is on different footings from the case of present applicant. The other contention of learned counsel for applicant that, names of some of co-accused were placed in column No.II, suffice it to say that, as per own saying of counsel for applicant the opinion/ report of the police was not accepted by trial Court, and it took cognizance of the case and these co-accused were joined in the case by the learned trial Court.

6. More-so, perusal of the impugned order dated 13.01.2024, reflects that report about conduct of applicant/ accused was called by learned trial Court from jail authorities and it was reported by the jail authorities that during confinement in jail, the behavior of the applicant remained unsatisfactory, as such F.I.R vide Crime No. 03 of 2024 was lodged agaisnt him and such misconduct report was also submitted to the trial Court.

7. In the light of above position, discussion and circumstances, we are of the considered view that applicant/ accused has failed to make out his case for grant of discretionary relief of bail; therefore, the bail application in hands stands dismissed.

8. Needless to state that whatever stated above is tentative in nature and will not cause prejudice to case of either party at trial.

Judge

Ansari