IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 2289
of 2024
Criminal Bail Application No. 2290
of 2024
Criminal Bail Application No. 2291
of 2024
|
DATE |
ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE. |
Present: Mr.
Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
For hearing of
bail applications
---------------------------------
16.01.2025
Mr. Imtiaz Ali
Jatoi, advocate for applicants/accused
Mr. Muhammad
Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh
---------------------------------------
Naimatullah
Phulpoto, J.- Applicants/accused
Haris son of Muhammad Arif and Ghulam Abbas son of Ghulam Rasool seek post
arrest bail in main case bearing Crime No.219/2024, under Sections 353/324/34
PPC and in offshoot cases bearing Crimes Nos.220 and 221 of 2024, under section
23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, registered against them at P.S. Mauripur,
Karachi. Prior to this, both accused applied for the same relief before learned
Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Karachi West but the same was declined by him
vide orders dated 11.09.2024.
2. It
is contended that encounter took-place at midnight on 04.09.2024 but source of
light is not mentioned; that despite cross-firing with sophisticated weapons,
not a single injury was caused to the police officials or to the motorcycle in
the use of said police officials; that from the place of incident blood was not
found by the IO at the place of occurrence, as it the case of the prosecution that
during cross-firing accused Haris sustained firearm injury. It is further
submitted that in a fake police encounter applicant/accused Haris has been
fired by police officials and the ingredients of the alleged offence are yet to
be determined at trial. Lastly, it is argued that case against
applicants/accused requires further inquiry. In support of contentions,
reliance is placed upon the case reported as Naveed Sattar versus the State & Others (2024 SCMR 205).
3. Mr.
Muhammad Iqbal Awan, learned Additional Prosecutor
General Sindh argued that after cross-firing both the applicants were arrested
at the spot and accused Haris was arrested in injured condition; crime weapons
were recovered from their possession. He further argued that evidence of police
officials is supported by medical evidence. He opposed the bail applications.
4. I
am inclined to grant bail to applicants/accused Haris and Ghulam Abbas, for the
reasons that despite cross-firing with sophisticated weapons, not a single
injury was caused to the police party; motorcycle in the use of police
officials was also not hit. It is matter of record that incident occurred at
midnight but source of light is not mentioned in the FIR. It is also surprising
that from the place of incident blood was not found by IO, though accused Haris
sustained firearm injury in the incident. Apparently, ingredients of the
alleged offences are yet to be determined at trial. It is settled principle of
law that benefit of doubt can even be extended at bail stage as held in the
case reported as Naveed Sattar versus the State & Others (2024 SCMR 205).
5. For
the above stated reasons, prima facie, there are no reasonable grounds for
believing that the applicants/accused have committed
the alleged offence, but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into
their guilt. Applicants/accused are entitled to be released on bail subject to their
furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/-
(Rupees Two Lacs) each and P.R bond
in the like amount in main case and in offshoot case, subject to their furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/-(Rupees One Lac) each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court. Instant bail applications are accordingly allowed.
6. Needless
to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature,
the same would not influence the trial court while deciding the case of the
applicants/accused on merits.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS