IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No.1490 of 2017

Present: Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto

Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi

Applicant: Khalid Hussain alias Shahzad Qureshi through Mr. Javed Ahmed Chhattari, advocate

Respondent: The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing: 29.11.2017

Date of announcement: __.12.2017

O R D E R

NAIMATULAH PHULPOTO, J.-- Applicant/accused Khalid Hussain alias Shahzad Qureshi has applied for post arrest bail in F.I.R. No.354/2017, registered against him at police station Darakhshan, Karachi South for offences under sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on spy information applicant/accused was arrested by Darakhshan police and from his possession one rifle grenade was recovered on 23.07.2017. Case was registered against him under the above registered sections. During investigation, rifle grenade was examined by the Bomb Disposal Team. Investigation Officer collected such report. On the conclusion of usual investigation, challan was submitted against the accused under section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

3. Bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant/accused before learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-XII, Karachi, the same were rejected vide order dated 31.08.2017, thereafter, applicant/accused approached this Court.

4. Learned advocate for applicant/accused mainly contended that applicant/accused was picked up by the law enforcement agencies three days before the registration of F.I.R. and his cell phone was switched off for such period. It is further contended that call data during such period has been collected but the Investigation Officer failed to interrogate/investigate in it. It is further argued that according to the expert, rifle grenade could be used with proper technic (fire by rifle) otherwise no damage could be caused from such rifle grenade. It is submitted that case against applicant/accused requires further inquiry. In support of his contentions, reliance is placed upon unreported order of this Court passed in Criminal Bail Application No.98/2015 dated 11.03.2015.

5. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, learned, D.P.G., argued that rifle grenade has been recovered from the possession of the accused, however, learned D.P.G. conceded that as per report of the expert rifle grenade if used with proper technic (fire by rifle) could cause loss to life and property. He has also admitted that description of the rifle grenade has not been mentioned in the mashirnama of arrest and recovery. However, he opposed the bail application.

6. We have carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. According to the case of the prosecution, one rifle grenade was recovered from the possession of the accused by Darakhshan police on 23.07.2017 but during investigation by Bomb Disposal Unit, it was found that rifle grenade was in live condition, which if used with proper technic (fire by rifle) could cause loss of life and damage to the property. Admittedly, applicant/accused did not possess rifle at the time of his arrest. During investigation, intention of the accused could not be ascertained. Description of the alleged recovery has also not been mentioned in the mashirnama of arrest and recovery. Investigation Officer failed to interrogate / investigate the defence plea raised before him during investigation. Rightly reliance is placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.98/2015 dated 11.03.2015. Relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and A.P.G. and scanned the available record. Perusal of F.I.R. and challan clearly shows that one hand grenade was recovered from the applicant. However, the inspection report of Bomb Disposal Unit dated 12.6.2014 shows that SI Muhammad Faris of bomb disposal unit along with his team reached at PS Quaidabad, Karachi and during inspection found one rifle grenade in live condition, which if used with proper technic (fire by rifle) could cause loss of life and damage to the property. There is big difference between “hand grenade” and “rifle grenade” and perusal of F.I.R., challan and inspection report of bomb disposal unit creates doubt / suspicion as to the nature and description of the alleged recovery. Therefore, case of the applicant requires further inquiry and he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

For the foregoing reasons, we grant bail to the applicant subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (five lac only) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.”

7. For the above stated reasons, prima facie, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant/accused has committed the alleged offence but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt as provided under section 497(2), Cr.PC. Therefore, concession of bail is extended to applicant/accused Khalid Hussain alias Shahzad, subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

8. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same while deciding the case on merits.

J U D G E

Gulsher/PS