ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
Cr.Bail.Appl.No.S- 766 of 2010
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
For hearing.
14.11.2010
Mr. Abdul Rasool Abbasi, Advocate for applicant.
Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G for the State.
=
This order will dispose of Criminal Bail Application No.S-766/2010 filed by the applicant Azam Chandio whereby he seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.293 of 2010 of Police Station Dadu for offence U/s 395, 324, 353, 427 PPC & 17(3) Offence against property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
Applicant approached the trial Court for bail but could not succeed as his bail plea was turned down vide order dated 9.8.2010.
Contents of the prosecution case in nutshell are that on 9.6.2010 ASI Muhammad Ashraf alongwith his subordinate staff duly armed with official arms left P.S for patrolling. When they reached at Makhdoom Bilawal stop, two persons who were traveling in a car approached the police party and disclosed that five culprits who were armed with deadly weapons have deprived of them from their cash and mobile phones on the Indus Highway, saying so they proceeded towards Mehar in the said car. On such information police party proceeded towards the pointed place where they saw and identified accused 1. Mumtaz Khushik armed with KK, 2. Zameer Khushik with SBBL gun, 3. Abdul Karim, 4. Mour Khushik with DBBL gun and 5. Azam Chandio (the present applicant) with KK who seein the police mobile started firing upon the police party. One of the bullet hit to wind screen of the police mobile and crossed through rare glass. Resultantly, one iron strip removed from the wind screen and hit at the forehead of complainant ASI Muhammad Ashraf. Police party also took position and started firing. Meanwhile, other police party also attracted and participated in the exchange of firing which continued for about 15 minutes. Later on culprits stopped the firing and ultimately made their escape good. However, one of the culprits namely Mumtaz Khushik lost his life in the encounter. Police found his dead body and secured a KK with 10 live bullets by aside. Later on police brought the dead body and property at Police Station and lodged the report on behalf of the State.
It is inter alia contended that applicant is innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged offence; no overt act is attributed to him and there are general allegations against all the culprits; no identification parade was held; there is no recovery of crime weapon from the applicant. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the case of Adeel Vs. The State (2010 P.Cr.L.J 725) and Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others Vs. The State (1996 SCMR 1125).
On the other hand, learned D.P.G for the State opposed the application and defended the impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, the name of applicant appears in the FIR therefore, question of identification parade merits no consideration. The applicant was member of the culprits who fired upon the police party and during exchange of firing one of the culprits lost his life and police party secured the KK which was lying with the dead body of said culprit. The applicant has not alleged any previous enmity, ill will or grudge against any member of the police party. He was member of dacoits who were involved in a highway robbery. With profound respect the law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable and not helpful to the case in hand as in the case of Adeel (Supra), the bail was granted to the accused on the ground that he remained in jail for more than a year and during cross examination, I. O admitted that no empties were secured from the place of occurrence whereas the case of Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others (Supra) pertains to a murder case which has nothing to do with the case in hand.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Consequently, his bail application being devoid of merits was dismissed by short order dated 24.11.2010.
Above are the reasons of said short order.
JUDGE
Tufail