ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No.189 of 2014

Muhammad Faisal………………………………………………….. Applicant

Versus

The State ………………………………………….……………….Respondent

Date of hearing:                   27.02.2014   

Mr. Sharafuddin Jamali, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, APG

                                          ************************

O R D E R

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J:  Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his released on bail in FIR No.32/2014 registered under Section 23-(1)(A) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, P.S. Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, applicant Muhammad Faisal son of Zulfiqar Ali is seeking his release on bail through instant bail application.

2.         The post arrest bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, vide her order dated 04.02.2014, hence, this bail application.

3.         Briefly the allegation against the applicant/accused is that he was found in his possession one unlicensed TT Pistol of 30 bore along with four live bullets, hence this FIR.

4.         It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has contended that on 26.01.2014 rangers official stopped the applicant and recovered 9 mm pistol bearing No.LT 780 worth of Rs.90,000/-, the applicant has shown his arms license having detail of such recovered weapon but the rangers official handed over the custody of the applicant to P.S. Gkulshan-e-Iqbal and on the direction of rangers official foisted upon him 30 bore pistol and has falsely involved in this case. According to him, the ranger officials on the basis of their uniform and powers committing dacoities and robberies and the present case is the best example of it. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant and the alleged recovery is foisted upon him. He has further submitted that the applicant/accused is behind the bar for last more than one month. Hence, under the circumstances, he has prayed for bail. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the unreported bail orders of this Court viz. Cr. Bail Application No.317/2013, Cr. Bail Application No.867 of 2013, Cr. Bail Application No.817 of 2013, Cr. Bail Application No.102 of 2014, Cr. Bail Application No. 832 of 2013 and Cr. Bail Application No.92 of 2014.

5.         On the other hand, learned APG opposed the bail application on the ground that recovery is effected from the possession of applicant/accused in presence of two police officials who have no inimical terms with present applicant.  He has also contended that the punishment of alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he has relied upon unreported Bail Order of this Court dated 17.2.2014 passed in Cr. Bail Application No.195 of 2014.

6.         It is an admitted position that case has been challaned. Applicant is no more required for investigation. The case of the prosecution rest upon the evidence of police officials, therefore, no question does arise for tampering of their evidence at the hands of applicant. Since the whole case of the prosecution rest upon the evidence of the police officials, therefore, their evidence is required to be minutely scrutinized at the time of trial whether the offence as alleged in the FIR allegedly committed by the applicant in a fashion as narrated by complainant 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.

7.         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.

8.         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.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

                                                                                    J U D G E