ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Cr. Bail Appln.  No:  S- 478 of 2012.

Date                          Order with signature of judge.

1. For orders on office objection as flag A.

2. For Hearing.                                                      

05.11.2012.

Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri,  advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Abdul Rasheed Soomro,  State Counsel.

========

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO,J.:-Applicant/accused seeks bail in Crime NO.74/2012  registered against the accused  at P.S Radhan Station for offences punishable under sections 324 and 353 PPC.

                        Brief facts of the prosecution case  as disclosed in the FIR are that on 01.10.2012  ASI  Muhammad Afzal Solangi, Incharge of P.P Sindhi Butra of P.S Radhan Station  left police post alongwith his subordinate  staff vide roznamcha entry No.7 at 06.00 p.m  in government vehicle No.SP-7318 for patrol duty.  While patrolling  at various places, they stopped at Saleh Jatoi Bridge  on Mehar-Nau Goth link road and started checking of vehicles. At about 2230 hours  a car appeared from Mehar side which was signaled to stop. The driver of the car, seeing the police party stopped the car from which four accused armed with rifles got down  and while challenging the police party started  firing at them with intention to kill. Police also fired in defence. The accused left the car on the road  and started running to southern side.  Ultimately one accused armed with K.K type rifle  was apprehended  by police while rest of three accused made their escape good.  One K.K type of rifle was secured from the apprehended accused.  On inquiry, accused disclosed his name as Ghulam Yaseen Soomro and also disclosed names of other escaped accused as Hussain alias Pathan, 2.Abdul Majeed Soho and Qurban Brohi and  stated that the his rifle is unlicensed.  From his personal search nothing incriminating material was recovered from his possession. The car left by the accused on road was also secured  and for its papers accused Ghulam Yaseen failed to produce  the same.  Thereafter mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared in presence of mashirs namely PCs Muhammad Hassan and Muhammad Ali.  Accused Ghulam Yaseen alongwith  rifle as well as car were brought  at P.S where the FIR  was lodged.  A separate  FIR U/S 13-(d)  A.O was also registered against the said accused.

                          After  completion of usual investigation, challan was submitted against accused. Bail application on behalf of the applicant/accused  Ghulam Yaseen was moved before learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, same was rejected by his order dated 18.10.2012 thereafter applicant/accused approached to this Court for similar relief through the instant bail application.

                        Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri,  learned advocate for the applicant/accused contended that despite encounter with the sophisticated weapons which lasted for five minutes, no one received injury from either side neither vehicle  parked at the wardhat  was damaged.   All the P.Ws are police officials and deeply interested.   He further submits that prior to the instant case, the father of applicant namely Mohammad Hashim Soomro filed constitutional  petitions bearing NO.2034/2010  and 733/2006 against the police officials.  It is contended that accused have been falsely implicated in this case only to take revenge. 

                        Learned State  counsel concedes to  the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and recorded no objection to the grant of bail to applicant/accused.

                        I am inclined  to grant bail to the applicant/accused  for the reasons  that there  was cross firing with the sophisticated  weapons  but no one received injury/scratch  from both sides.  Even no damage was caused to the police mobile.  Case has been challaned therefore, there is no question of tampering with prosecution evidence.  Apparently, in the circumstances of the case application of section 324 PPC  is yet to be determined  at the trial.   It may be mentioned  here that  evidence at bail stage can not be appreciated deeply and only tentative  view is to be taken to find out as to whether accused is connected with the commission  of alleged offence or not. On the basis of mere allegation without sufficient material, concession of bail can not be refused to the applicant/accused as punishment. 

                        Prima facie a case against the applicant/accused Ghulam Yaseen requires further inquiry as contemplated U/S 497(2) Cr.P.C  therefore, concession of bail  is extended  to applicant subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/= and P.R bond in the like amount to the  satisfaction of trial Court.   These are the reasons for my short order.

            Needless to mention here that the above observations are tentative in nature and trial  Court shall not be influenced  by the same at the trial.

JUDGE