IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Bail Application No.491 of 2025
Cr. Bail Application No.492 of 2025
Cr. Bail
Application No.493 of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail applications
---------------------------------------------
30.04.2025
Mr. Imran Ali Shah, advocate for
applicant
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional
Prosecutor General Sindh.
------------------------------
Shamsuddin Abbasi,
J.-- Applicants Yaseen and
Tayyab seek post arrest bail in FIR No.30/2025, under sections 324, 353, 34,
PPC and FIRs Nos.31 and 32 of 2025, under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms
Act, 2013, registered at P.S. Sujawal, after rejection of their bail pleas by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sujawal vide orders dated 17.02.2025.
2. Brief
facts of the cases are that on 08.02.2025, complainant SIP Muhammad Safar
Dawich was on patrolling duty along with his subordinate staff, they saw a 125
motorcycle coming from Darro, 4 persons were riding on it, who were stopped,
however, they started firing upon police, police party also fired in defence,
in result whereof two accused persons sustained firearm injuries while two
accused persons succeeded to escape away. Police taken into custody both
injured persons and recovered unlicensed pistols from their possession along
with live cartridges under mashirnama, hence the aforesaid FIRs.
3. Learned
counsel for applicants submits that a false story has been managed by police
wherein none from the police side received any injury and both the applicants
sustained firearm injuries and weapons have been foisted upon them in order to
strengthen the main case, therefore, cases of applicants require further
inquiry in terms of section 497(2), Cr.PC.
4. On the
other hand, learned Addl: P. G. Sindh has opposed for grant of bail on the
ground that applicants are involved in series of offence as applicant Yaseen is
involved in 8 cases whereas applicant Tayyab is involved in 10 cases.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicants as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General
Sindh and perused the material available on record.
6. From
tentative assessment of material available on record it appears that encounter
has taken place between accused and police where none has received any injury from
police side and both applicants sustained firearm injuries at the hands of
police. Learned counsel for applicants mainly contended that applicants were
arrested prior to this incident and police managed this false encounter case.
So far as the recovery of weapons is concerned, same were foisted upon them in
order to strengthen the main case; both the applicants are injured and they
need proper medical treatment, which is not possible inside the jail. As per
FIRs, it was a day time incident and out of four, two accused persons sustained
firearm injuries whereas two accused persons made their escape good, which requires
further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC. In such like cases, rule is
grant of bail and its refusal is an exception. Reliance is placed on the case
of Muhammad Tanveer versus State (PLD 2017 SC 733)
7. In the
view of above, applicants have made out a case for grant of post arrest bail,
therefore, post arrest bail is granted to them, subject to their furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
each and P.R. bond in the like amount in
main case as well as in offshoot cases
to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. Needless
to mention here that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and
would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
9. Instant
criminal bail applications are disposed of in the above terms. Office to place
copy of this order in connected criminal bail applications.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS