ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No.  S-  430 of 2013.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

08.10.2013.

1. For orders on M. A. No. 2383/2013.

2. For orders on M. A. No. 2250/2013.

3. For hearing.

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

Mrs. Shamim, State Counsel.

~~~~

1.                     Urgency application granted.

2.                     Dismissed as infructuous.

3.                     Applicant Sawali Umrani seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.24/2013, under Section 23 (i) (a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, of P.S Areja, District Larkana. 

Precisely, relevant facts are that, the applicant during interrogation in crime No.22/2013, agreed to produce the crime weapon before the police, as such he led the police party to place of occurrence and produced an un-licensed SBBL gun of 12-bore without number before police.  The gun was taken into possession by the police under mashirnama. Thereafter, the accused alongwith case property was brought back to Police station, where complainant lodged F.I.R to the above effect.

            I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned State Counsel and have gone through the police papers with able assistance of the parties counsel.

            Learned Advocate for the applicant has argued that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the police, only in order to show their efficiency. According to him, in-fact nothing was recovered from the applicant but police foisted the gun upon him showing two police officials as mashirs who are his subordinates, therefore, their evidence cannot be safely relied upon. Learned counsel further submitted that challan against the applicant has already been submitted; he is no more required for investigation and his further detention in jail would not serve any purpose, therefore, he has prayed for grant of bail to the applicant. In support of his arguments learned counsel has relied upon an un-reported Order dated 27.8.2013, passed by this Court in Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 291/2013.

            As against this, learned State Counsel has opposed grant of bail to applicant on the ground that recovery has been effected in presence of two police officials, who have no inimical terms with the applicant. According to her, the offence under which the present applicant has been challaned falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore, she opposed this bail application.

            I have carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant papers on record.

            It is admitted fact on record that the investigation of the case has been completed, and all the prosecution witnesses in this case are police officials, therefore, there is no apprehension of tampering with the evidence on the part of applicant. The learned State Counsel on query has admitted that the pistol allegedly recovered from the applicant has not been sealed and sent for Ballistic Expert’s opinion, therefore, on this ground case of the applicant requires further probe, whether the alleged recovered pistol was in working condition or otherwise. No doubt, the evidence of the police officials is as good as other witnesses, but when the whole case rests upon sole evidence of police officials, their evidence requires deep scrutiny at trial.

            The learned State Counsel has contended that the offence is punishable upto fourteen years and comes within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In this regard it is important to remember that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death or transportation, unless reasonable grounds appear 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 long run.

            In view of the above circumstances, the applicant has been able to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousands) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

Judge

Ansari/*