IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application
No.S-851 of 2025
|
DATE
OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE |
1. For orders on O/objection at
flag-A.
2. For hearing of post-arrest bail.
Date
of hearing 13.10.2025.
Mr. Sikandar
Ali Junejo, Advocate for applicant/accused.
Mr.
Aftab Ahmed Shar, Addl.P.G for State.
***************
O R D E R
Learned counsel
for the applicant submits statement alongwith photocopy of bail application
bearing No.825 of 2025 wherein FIR No.122 of 2025 a case made out alongwith the
applicant has been entertained.
Through instant bail
application, applicant Muhammad Ali son of Muhammad Hassan seeks Post-arrest bail in Crime No.121 of 2025 Police Station, Babarloi
district,
Khairpur
for
offence under Sections 23(i) a Sindh Arms Act. Earlier his bail application was declined by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khairpur vide order dated 29.08.2025.
2. Facts of the case are that 22.08.2025 at 2020 hours complainant
ASI Hussain Bux lodged FIR alleging that applicant was apprehended in
connection with Crime No.120 of 2025 and during his arrest 30 bore TT pistol
with magazine rubbed number in working condition and two live bullets were
recovered from his possession in presence of mashirs namely HC Bashir Ahmed
Kanasiro and PC Abdul Waheed Shar. After completing formalities, separate FIR
under Sindh Arms Act was registered on behalf of the State.
3. Learned counsel for applicant contends that the present
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case merely to show
the efficiency of the police. He further contends that recovery is doubtful as
no private witnesses were associated, despite the place of occurrence is busy
area and both the mashirs are police officials. Learned counsel further
contends that the present applicant is behind bars since his arrest/lodging of
the FIR.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General formally opposed the bail
application on the ground that weapon was recovered from the possession of
applicant and also supported the order passed by the trial Court.
5. Having heard learned
counsels and gone through the record. It appears that compliance of Section 103 Cr.P.C
should have been made as prime object of said Section was to ensure transparency
and fairness on the part of police during course of recovery which is lacking
in this case, therefore, the applicant/accused is entitled for concession of
bail. All the witnesses of prosecution are Police officials and sub-ordinates
of
complainant, no independent person of the locality has been cited as witness in
charge-sheet. There is
no material placed on record to show that the applicant is involved previously
in any similar office. Investigation
in the case was complete therefore, accused was no longer required to Police
for further investigation as such, the incarceration of accused would serve no
useful purpose and case against applicant/accused fell within ambit of further
inquiry. In the
said circumstances, this bail application is allowed as the applicant is found
to make out a case of further inquiry. The applicant was taken-up in the
present FIR whereas the order relied upon is in respect to similar FIR the
accused has already been entertained having similarity. Let the present
applicant be released on bail on submitting solvent surety
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial
Court.
Needless to mention here that
observations made herein above are tentative in nature and trial
Court may not be influenced of the same and decide the case on its merits.
Bail
application stands allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Ihsan/PS