ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.92 of 2014
Muhammad Abrar…………………………………………………….. Applicant
Versus
The State ………………………………………….……………….Respondent
Date of hearing: 06.02.2014
Mr. Khawaja Muhammad Azeem, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Shahzado Saleem, APG
************************
O R D E R
Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J: Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his released on bail in FIR No.5/2014 registered under Section 23-(i)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, applicant Muhammad Abrar son of Khadim Hussain is seeking his release on bail through instant bail application.
Briefly the allegation against the applicant/accused is that he was arrested in another FIR No.4/2014 under Section 379/34 PPC and police also found in his possession one unlicensed 30 bore pistol loaded with magazine alongwith three live bullets, hence, this FIR.
The post arrest bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, vide his order dated 17.1.2014, hence, this bail application.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case against applicant/accused is false and has been registered due to enmity. He has further submitted that in fact nothing was recovered from the possession of applicant/accused and the weapon allegedly recovered from accused even has not been sent to Ballistic Expert for his opinion whether such weapon is in working condition or otherwise. He has further submitted that the applicant/accused is behind the bar for last more than one month and he has already been granted bail in FIR No.4/2014 under Section 379/34 PPC. Hence, under the circumstances, he has prayed for bail.
On the other hand, learned APG opposed the bail application on the ground that recovery was affected from the possession of applicant/ accused in presence of two mashirs, who have no inimical terms with present applicant. He also contended that the punishment of alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
It is an admitted position that case has been challaned. Applicant is no more required for investigation. There is no apprehension of tampering of the prosecution evidence. Nothing has been produced before me to show whether the alleged weapon recovered from the possession of the application/accused was sent to Ballistic Expert for his opinion whether the same was in working condition or otherwise. There is nothing on the record to show that the applicant/accused is a previous convict or has been arrested in a case of similar nature in past.
As far as the contention of learned APG regarding involvement of the applicant/accused in a case punishment of which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it would be suffice to say that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep the people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death, transportation of life or ten years unless reasonable ground appears to exist to disclose their complicity. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of bail granted to him but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the longer run.
In view of above discussion, the applicant has successfully made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, applicant/accused be released on bail after his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
J U D G E