ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No.148 of 2014

Muhammad Mohsin………………………………………………….. Applicant

Versus

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

Date of hearing:                   12.03.2014   

Dated of order:                      12.03.2014

Mr. Sardar Azmat Hussain, advocate for the applicant.

          Mr. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, APG

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

O R D E R

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J:  Through this application, the applicant seeks his release on bail in FIR No.8/2014, registered at P.S. Khokhrapar, Karachi East, under Section 23(i) A, Arms Ordinance, lodged on 16.01.2014 by complainant SIP Ghulam Akbar on behalf of State.

2.         Briefly, the allegation against the applicant/accused is that he was found in his possession one unlicensed Revolver of 32 bore with 04 rounds without number, hence this FIR.

3.         The post arrest bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, vide her order dated 28.01.2014, hence, this bail application.

4.         I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned Addl.P.G and have gone through the case so available before me.

5.         Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused and the alleged recovery is foisted upon him. The applicant/accused was arrested from his house. All the witnesses are the police officials and no private witness of recovery was associated by the police though the place of arrest and recovery is a thickly populated area, hence there is clear violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C. He has further argued that the challan against the applicant/accused has already been submitted before the trail Court and the applicant/accused is no more required for investigation, hence according to him the case of the applicant/accused is required further inquiry.

6.         On the other hand, learned Addl. P.G opposed the grant of bail application on the ground that the applicant/accused was arrested on 16.01.2014 and recovered weapon was promptly sent for FSL for opinion. The FSL report dated 17.01.2014 is available on the record. He has further argued that punishment of Section 23-A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, which shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years and with fine. As per Section 34 (a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, Section 103 Cr.P.C is not applicable. The said act has been notified vide order dated 22.05.2013. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the case law reported in Riaz Shah and another v. The State (1990 MLD 204).

7.         After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, it appears that the whole case of the prosecution rest upon the evidence of two police officials. No doubt, the police officials are good witnesses as others and their evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground that they are employees of the Police Department. However, if the entire prosecution case depends upon the sole evidence of police officials then their evidence must require deep and conscious consideration and scrutiny as sometimes the police officials became witness deeming it to be their official duty. Furthermore, the case has been challaned. This applicant/accused is no more required for investigation. All witnesses are police officials, therefore, there is no probability of tempering with the prosecution evidence if the applicant is released on bail. There is also nothing on record to show that the applicant/accused is a previous convict or has been arrested in a case of similar nature in past. The learned Addl. P.G has argued that the punishment of the offence under which the present applicant/accused is challaned is upto 14 years. Reverting to the contention as raised by the learned Addl. P.G, it is suffice to say that this is no ground to retain the applicant/accused behind the bar and the bail cannot be declined as punishment.

8.         As I have observed above, that the challan against the applicant/accused has already been submitted before the trial Court and this applicant/accused is no more required for investigation. I, therefore, under the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, admit the applicant/accused to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The case law cited by the learned Addl.P.G has been perused and considered by me but did not find applicable to the facts of the present case, hence the same is not helpful for him.

                                                                                    J U D G E