IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Before:

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

Mr. Justice Jan Ali Junejo

2^nd Cr. Bail Appln. No. D- 53 of 2024

Applicant(s): Ghazi Khan and Mehran Ali both by caste Jatoi, through Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate

1^st. Cr. Bail Appln. No. D- 57 of 2024

Applicant(s): Abdul Ghafar Dahani, Though Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate

1^st. Cr. Bail Appln. No. D- 08 of 2025

Applicant(s): Muhammad Yaqoob Dahani,Though Mr. Rashid Mustafa Solangi, Advocate

The State: Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh

Date of hearing: 22-04-2025

Date of order: 22-04-2025

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J:- This consolidated order shall determine the outcome of the three bail applications, as all arise from the same criminal incident. The applicants in Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 53 of 2024 and 57 of 2024 seek pre-arrest bail, whereas the applicants in Criminal Bail Application No. D-08/2025 seek post-arrest bail, all in relation to Crime No. 03/2024 registered at Police Station Aqil @ Peer Sher, District Larkana, for offences under Sections 302, 324, 353, 393, 337-H(ii), 148, 149, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with Sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The applicants had earlier approached the learned trial Court/Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana, for bail; however, their applications were dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2024. Consequently, they have filed the present criminal bail applications.

2. The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail application, the same could be gathered from the copy of the F.I.R. attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3. Per learned counsel the applicants/accused Abdul Ghafar, Ghazi Khan and Mehrab have nothing to do with the present incident as they are Jatoi by caste and the motive is not attributed to them; that the applicants Abdul Ghafar, Ghazi Khan and Mehrab are not alleged to have caused any injury to deceased or to the complainant party; that the role attributed to the applicants Abdul Ghafar, Ghazi Khan and Mehrab is that they robbed a G-3 Rifle from P.C- Sadam Hussain; that the applicants have been falsely implicated due to political rivalry and the applicants have nothing to do with the dispute in between the co-accused, who are Dahani by caste and the deceased Mohammad Hassan Chandio.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant Muhammad Yaqoob Dahani, contended that the applicant member of High Court Bar Association, Larkana and holds the office as a Deputy District Attorney (BPS-18); that this is the political motivated case based on political rivalry between ruling and opposition parties; that the political victimization can well be understood from the fact that co-accused Ali Hassan Dahani, is father of the applicant/accused who was chief polling agent of the candidate of GDA in PS 11 in general elections held on 08.02.2024; that prima facie the contents of prosecution case are unbelievable, ambiguous and absurd because the entire case of the prosecution against the applicant is concocted, managed and engineered based on after thought and ulterior motives on the behest of the ruling party to serve the political vengeance; that as per contents of FIR the applicant was present at the place of incident duly armed with K.K which is but a lie and false claim;

5. They further argued that the applicant was picked up at night prior to morning incident instead of his father who was nominated in FIR No.07 of 2024 Police Station Mahota in a political motivated case lodged a day before the instant incident; that colleagues of the applicant who are lawyers and members of DBA and HBA Larkana met the applicant at the Police Station while he was in custody but the SHO, did not release him on the prtext/excuse that the applicant has been detained at the instance of high ups; that the applicant party itself is victim of firing which is clear from the version of the injured witnesses namely Abdul Ghaffar and Masood Ahmed Dahani, incorporated in the affidavit sworn by them and malafide of the police is that the version of the accused party was not incorporated in FIR nor was any counter version of accused party recorded despite directions by this court;

6. They contended that the statements of the witnesses who are aware of the facts is not being recorded though the I.O is duty bound to record their statements which would support the prosecution or the accused; that this is a counter version case and it is settled law that it would be seen at the time of trial which party was aggressor and which was aggressed upon; that the statements of injured witnesses despite having been recorded by the I.O the same is not being part of the police file as yet; that the applicant/accused claims plea of alibi as he was not present on the spot where the incident took place rather he was illegally detained at Police Station Mahota and lastly prayed that the applicants/accused deserve the concession of bail.

7. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that this is a heinous case and the applicants/ accused are nominated with specific.

8. Heard and perused.

9. It is an admitted position that the names of the applicants/accused are specifically mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR), with distinct and overt roles attributed to each of them. According to the prosecution's case, on the day of the incident, police received credible information that approximately 27 armed individuals were attacking Al-Atif Hotel. Pursuant to this information, all contingents of police within the district were directed to proceed to the location. Acting upon such a wireless message, ASI Zameer Ahmed, along with other police personnel, departed from the Police Station and arrived at the Al-Atif Hotel at approximately 0830 hours. Upon arrival, they joined DSP Bashir Ahmed Shar, SDPO Saddar, and his team, including PC Sadam Hussain (Driver), PC Gada Hussain Shahani, ASI Sultan Ahmed Shah (PS Mahota), ASI Ghulam Nabi Chahwan, PC Abdul Latif, PC Ali Akbar, Driver PC Ghulam Hussain (PS Mahota), Inspector Khadim Hussain Buledi (SHO PS Hyder) with ASI Mohammad Awais Soomro, PC Hussain Bux, PC Shafqat Abbas, PC Abdullah, Driver PC Manzoor Ali, SHO Toufique Ahmed Shah (PS Baqapur), with ASI Habibullah, PC Imamuddin, PC Sikandar Ali, Driver PC Qadir Bux, and government vehicles. HC Mohammad Nawaz (Incharge Special Team), PC Saifullah, PC Imran Ali, PC Izhar Ali, and Driver PC Bilawal also reached the scene. All officers, under the command and supervision of DSP Bashir Ahmed Shar, proceeded towards Al-Atif Hotel.

10. Upon reaching the location, the complainant and accompanying police party observed the following accused persons, armed with Kalashnikov rifles (K.K): (1) Ali Hassan, (2) Mohammad Yakoob, (3) Masood, (4) Abdul Ghaffar, (5) Imran, (6) Irfan s/o Mir Hassan, (7) Zafar s/o Ali Gohar, (8) Ali Gohar, (9) Ghulam Hyder (all residents of Village Khuhawar Khan Dahani, by caste Dahani), (10) Tashkeel Hyder, (11) Ghazi Khan (both residents of Pirsher Road, Larkana), (12) Mehrab, and approximately 10–15 other unidentified armed persons. The accused emerged from within the premises of the Al-Atif Hotel and commenced unprovoked firing upon the police party as well as civilians. While the police attempted to apprehend the assailants, accused Ali Hassan Dahani and Mohammad Yakoob Dahani allegedly exhorted their accomplices to open fire on the police with the intent to kill. Consequently, all accused persons began indiscriminate firing upon the police party.

11. During the exchange of gunfire, accused Ali Hassan Dahani and Tashkeel Hyder Jatoi allegedly fired directly at police officials. A bullet fired by Ali Hassan struck ASI Sultan Ahmed Shah on his left leg, while another shot by Tashkeel Hyder Jatoi hit ASI Sultan Ahmed Shah in the chest, causing him to collapse after raising a cry. Mohammad Hassan, owner of the Al-Atif Hotel, was standing at a distance when accused Ali Hassan, Mohammad Yakoob, Masood Ahmed, Imran, and Tashkeel Jatoi allegedly fired upon him with intent to kill, hitting him on various parts of the body including his shoulder, chest, abdomen, and leg, causing him to fall down. In the retaliatory firing by the police party, a shot allegedly fired by accused Masood Ahmed struck his own accomplice Imran, who sustained injury and fell.

12. As the police attempted to advance, accused Ali Gohar Dahani, Ghazi Khan Jatoi, and Mehrab Jatoi purportedly tried to break the police cordon. PC Sadam Hussain confronted them, upon which accused Ali Gohar Dahani allegedly assaulted him with the butt of a Kalashnikov rifle, while Ghazi Khan Jatoi and Mehrab Jatoi forcibly snatched a G-3 rifle from him. When DSP Bashir Ahmed Shar attempted to evacuate the injured ASI Sultan Ahmed Shah, he was allegedly assaulted with Kalashnikov butt blows by accused Irfan and Zafar Hussain, resulting in grievous injuries and visible bleeding. Thereafter, the accused managed to breach the police cordon and fled the scene while continuing indiscriminate firing. The encounter lasted approximately 30 minutes. It is further alleged by the complainant that Abdul Ghaffar Dahani, Masood Dahani, Irfan Dahani, and a passerby, Abdul Sattar Korkani, sustained gunshot injuries as a result of firing by their own accomplices. These accused were reportedly advising others to fire cautiously and to evacuate the injured. Eventually, Irfan Dahani, Abdul Ghaffar Dahani, and Abdul Sattar s/o Gulbaig Korkani were seen being taken away by their associates, who escaped from the scene under the cover of fire.

13. Upon examination of the injured persons at the scene, it was found that ASI Sultan Ahmed Shah had sustained a firearm injury on his right wrist, with active bleeding, and another through-and-through gunshot wound on the upper portion of his left knee. He was found to be deceased at the spot. The hotel owner, Mohammad Hassan Chandio, was observed to have sustained multiple gunshot wounds: one on the right shoulder, another on the right side of the neck, a third on the left side of the chest (through-and-through), a fourth wound on the anterior abdominal region, and a fifth injury to his left leg. He, too, was found to be deceased, with profuse bleeding from his injuries. DSP Bashir Ahmed Shar had sustained blunt force trauma, allegedly from butt strikes to the head, and was also observed to be bleeding.

14. Accused Imran Ali, son of Mir Hassan Dahani, was found with a firearm injury to his back, from which he was bleeding. A Kalashnikov rifle (K.K) was lying beside him. Approximately ten paces from that location, another accused, Masood, son of Ali Hassan and resident of Village Khuhawar Khan Dahani, was found in an injured state, with a firearm lying next to him. In the presence of mashirs ASI Zameer Ahmed Chahwan and PC Ghayoor Ali, the K.K. lying adjacent to the deceased accused Imran Ali was recovered. The rifle bore an erased number and contained a magazine, which was found to be empty upon unloading. Both the weapon and the empty magazine were sealed on the spot with three seals affixed.

15. Accused Masood Ahmed Dahani was found with two gunshot injuries: one near the navel and another on the left side of his abdomen. Blood was oozing from both wounds. A K.K. rifle, bearing an erased number and containing an empty magazine, was also recovered from beside him. The weapon and magazine were likewise sealed with three official seals. Upon inquiry, Masood Ahmed Dahani admitted that the recovered firearm was unlicensed. He further disclosed that co-accused Irfan, Abdul Ghaffar, and a passerby, Abdul Sattar Korkani, had sustained firearm injuries during the incident, allegedly from the firing of their own accomplices. The injured accused Masood Ahmed Dahani was formally arrested at the spot.

16. Subsequently, statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, wherein they categorically implicated the present applicants/accused in the commission of the alleged offence and fully supported the version of events as stated by the complainant. The ocular evidence presented is corroborated by the medical reports. At the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the available material is required. It is also noteworthy that no specific allegation of enmity, mala fide, or ill-will has been raised by the applicants/accused against the complainant or members of the police party that could potentially give rise to false implication in the present case.

17. Further, the concession of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to an accused person unless the Court feels satisfied with the seriousness of the accused person’s assertion regarding his intended arrest being actuated by mala fide on the part of the complainant party or the local police but not a word about this crucial aspect of the matter is found as no mala fide is made on the part of the complainant to believe that the applicant/accused has been implicated in this case falsely. In this context, the reliance is placed to the case of ‘Rana Abdul Khaliq v. The STATE and others’ [2019 SCMR 1129]. In addition to the above, we would like to mention that grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is a diversion of the usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore, an applicant seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide, it is not a substitute for post-arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of the investigation.

18. In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicants have failed to make out a case for grant of bail in subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the instant bail applications are dismissed. The interim pre-arrest bail applications No.53 of 2024 and 57 of 2024 granted to the applicants/accused vide orders dated 21.10.2024 and 04.11.2024 are hereby recalled.

19. In view of above finding post arrest bail application filed on behalf of accused Muhammad Yaqoob Dahani also dismissed.

20. At this stage learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Requests that the custody of accused may be handed over to the I.O for recovery of crime weapons. I.O is present in Court. The custody of accused persons is handed over to him for further investigation with directions to submit supplementary report before the concerned Magistrate/concerned trial Court.

21. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned trial court while deciding the case of either party at trial.

J U D G E