IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.10 of
2024
Before:
Mr. Justice
Naimatullah Phulpoto
Mr. Justice
Khadim Hussain Tunio
-----------------------------------------------
31.01.2024
Mr. Muhammad Lateefuddin
Pasha, advocate for applicant
Mr. Ali Haider
Saleem, Additional Prosecutor General
PI/IO Asif Rauf
and SIP Imran Ali of PS Al-Falah, Karachi
Complainant
Mulazim Hussain Bhatti present
-------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- Applicant/accused
Raja Muhammad Raees Usmani seeks post arrest bail in FIR No.29/2021 for offences under sections 365-A/34, PPC read with section 7,
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and FIR
No.30/2021, for offence under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013,
registered at Police Station Al-Falah, Karachi. Prior to this,
applicant/accused applied for bail before learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism
Court-VI, Karachi, the same was rejected vide order dated 21.08.2023.
Thereafter, the applicant/accused approached this Court.
2. Learned advocate for the
applicant/accused mainly contended that ingredients of offence under Section
365-A, PPC are not made out; applicant/accused is in custody for a period of
more than three years, yet his trial is not concluded. It is further argued
that features of accused persons were not mentioned in the FIR and
identification parade was not held. Lastly, it is argued that evidence, which
is recorded before the trial Court, is insufficient to connect the
applicant/accused in the commission of offence and prayed for grant of bail. In
support of above submissions, reliance is placed on the cases of Saleh Muhammad
vs. The State and another (1983 SCMR 341), Muhammad Khan vs. Maula Bakhsh and
another (1998 SCMR 570), Ajmal Khan versus Liaquat Hayat and another (PLD 1998
Supreme Court 97), Muhammad Saleem vs. The State (2010 SCMR 374), Nasir Khan
versus Waseel Gul and another (2011 SCMR 710) Jahanzeb and others versus State
(2021 SCMR 63) Moazzam alias Moazzan versus The State (2012 MLD 1986), Muhammad
Hanif alias Hanif Shikarpuri versus The State (2001 MLD 963), Zeeshan and 5
others versus The State (2022 YLR 2046).
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor General
Sindh argued that trial is almost complete all the PWs have fully implicated
the applicant/accused in the commission of offence. So far as the delay in
conclusion of trial is concerned, it is argued that ground of statutory delay
was not pressed before the trial Court. Lastly, it is argued that there is
sufficient evidence against the applicant/accused to connect him in the commission
of offence, which carries capital punishment. Complainant Mulazim Hussain
Bhatti is also present in Court. He has also been heard, he has fully implicated
the applicant/accused in the commission of offence.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for
the parties as well as complainant, we have perused the material available on record.
It is a matter of record that evidence
of eight prosecution witnesses has been recorded by the trial Court, trial is almost
complete and the proper course for this Court in such a situation would be to
direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within a specified period. At this
stage, assessment of evidence by this Court may influence the trial Court. In
the case of REHMATULLAH vs. THE STATE and another (2011 SCMR 1332) Supreme
Court of Pakistan has held as under:
“The courts should not grant or cancel bail when the
trial is in progress and proper course for the courts in such a situation would
be to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case within a
specified period. Reference may be made to Haji Mian Abdul Rafiq v. Riaz ud Din
and another (2008 SCMR 1206). We find that the impugned order was passed in
violation of the law, therefore, we cannot subscribe to it. In view whereof, we
are persuaded to allow this petition and direct the learned trial Court to
conclude the trial of the case expeditiously.”
5. In the
view of above, no case for grant of bail to the applicant/accused is made out, instant criminal bail application is dismissed, with direction to the trial
Court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
J U D G E
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS