O R D E R S H E E T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. D-467 of 2011

Date	Order with signature of the Judge

1. For orders on M.A No.1872/2011

2. For Hearing

29.9.2011

Mr. Shahbaz Ali M. Brohi, advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Shahani, State counsel.

---------

FIR No. 186/2010 was recorded at Police Station, Garhi Yasin on 15.12.2010. Complainant was SHO Noor Muhammad. He stated that when he received telephonic information that notorious dacoits, present applicant No.1 and Babal Brohi along with their companion were gathered at a place, he along with police party went to the reported place and when he reached there he saw a group of ten identified and two unidentified persons duly armed. Some of them were armed with Klashnikovs while one was armed with a Rocket Launcher. Exchange of fire, it is stated in the FIR, continued between the parties for 45 minutes. It is also alleged that those accused who had Rocket Launchers also fired from their Rocket Launchers. Thereafter police encircled one of the accused persons, Babal alias Baboo who was armed with Klashnikov. It is alleged that the SHO and the said Babal grappled with each other giving each other but-blows eventually Babal was arrested and rest of the dacoits were able to made their good escape.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the FIR it is alleged that the applicants were armed with Klashnikovs but no person has received any firearm injury therefore case at the best for the prosecution against the applicants is that of ineffective firing. He further submitted that the firing continued for a period of 45 minutes and no empties have been recovered from the scene of the incident. He submitted that applicants have been falsely involved in the FIR and the FIR itself is a cooked up story.

Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Shahani, learned State counsel opposed the grant of this bail application and submitted that applicants have been nominated in the FIR. He further submitted that applicant No.1 is a hardened criminal and there are number of cases registered against him.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. As far as contention of learned State counsel that applicant No.1 is a hardened criminal and involved in a number of cases is concerned, suffice it to point out that each case is to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances of that case itself. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that a person is entitled to bail in a particular case mere fact that the person is accused of offences in other cases should not be a ground for refusing him concession of bail unless a very strong and compelling circumstances are pointed out.

It is alleged in the FIR that exchange of fire took place for 45 minutes. It is also alleged that Rocket Launchers were also fired by the accused persons. It is however strange that no damage was caused either to the police mobile or any other property and no one from the either side received any firearm injury. What is more to the point for deciding the bail application is that the challan does not indicate any recovery whatsoever except the klashnikov recovered from arrested accused person Babal and one motorcycle. Non recovery of any of the empties in a firing which is alleged to have continued for 45 minutes coupled with the fact that no injury has been caused to any one brings the case of the present applicants within the scope of further enquiry. Consequently, this bail application is allowed. Applicants are ordered to be admitted to bail upon their executing P.R bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

This bail application is consequently allowed in the above terms.

Judge