ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.
Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-539 of 2024
Date Order with signature of Hon’ble Judge
1. For orders on office objection.
2. For hearing of Bail Application.
Applicant : Kamil Teghani, through Mr Shahbaz Ali M. Brohi,
Advocate.
The State : Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G.
Date of hearing : 01.10.2024.
Date of Order : 01.10.2024.
O R D E R
Khadim Hussain Soomro, J.- Applicant Kamil, son of Eidan alias Ali Gohar Teghani has filed this application seeking post-arrest bail in crime No.47 of 2024, registered at Police Station Ghouspur, District Kashmore at Kandhkot, for offence under sections 324, 353, 399,402, 148, 149, P.P.C., after dismissal of his bail plea on 06-9-2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore at Kandhkot.
2. The background to this case is that on 11-8-2024, at 1710 hours, the police of Police Station Ghouspur headed by A.S.I. Meer Hassan Essani, while on patrol duty, acting on a tip-off, spotted and clashed with 07 armed culprits, including the present applicants, near Nihal Jafferi stop/diversion situated on the B.S. Feeder Link Road and after face-to-face cross-firing for about 10 minutes the culprits succeeded to make their escape good; hence, the complainant registered F.I.R. on behalf of State.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned D.P.G. with their assistance; I also perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has focused his argument 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 for 10 minutes, no member from either side received any injury. He submitted that the applicant had been falsely involved in this case and that he has no past criminal record.
5. Conversely, learned D.P.G. opposed the bail application merely on the ground that the police officials had no enmity with the applicant to falsely involve him in this case.
6. It is incontrovertible that the firing was ineffective; neither the police personnel sustained any bullet injuries, nor did any bullet hit the police mobile during the alleged encounter. Despite claims that the accused fired directly at the police with his respective weapons from close range, the police only recovered weapons and empties from the place of the incident. Under these specific circumstances, the intent of the accused to kill the police officers will be determined during the trial, where the learned trial court will ascertain the truth after examining witness testimony. As far as Sections 399 read with 402, P.P.C. are concerned, learned D.P.G. admitted that no criminal case had been shown registered against the present applicant, and even on the night of the alleged incident, no offence was reported within the jurisdiction of PS Ghouspur, therefore, basic ingredients for applying Sections 399 read with 402, P.P.C. are also lacking and yet to be established by the prosecution after recording evidence of its witnesses. This fact alone would form the basis for granting bail to the applicant. Furthermore, whether the alleged 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 reliance can be placed in the case of Jamaluddin v. The State (2012 SCMR 573.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail, provided he furnishes solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
JUDGE
Qazi Tahir PA/*