ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
AT KARACHI
Cr.
Bail Application No.1223 of 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF
JUDGE(S)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For
hearing
--------------
06.08.2014
Mr. Muhammad Kamran Khan, Advocate
for Applicant
Mr. Abdullah Rajput, A.P.G.
---------------------------------------------------------
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.-This bail application has been moved on behalf of the
Applicant/accused Saleem son of Abdul Sattar, arising
out of Crime No.124/2014, registered at P.S. Jamshed Quarters, Karachi on 13.04.2014, under section 23(1)(a)
of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013.
Brief facts of the prosecution case as
disclosed in FIR are that on 13.04.2014 ASI Dharmendar Roopchand along with
his subordinate staff left P.s for patrolling. During
patrolling he received spy information that two persons were standing near Islamia College main road inside street No93
with the intention to commit crime. SIP and other officials reached at the
pointed place and on the pointation of informer encircled and apprehended them,
they disclosed their names as Saleem son of Abdul Sattar
and Muhammad Sajid son of Maqsood Ahmed. Their personal
search was conducted. During search 30 bore pistol without number along with
loaded magazine containing three live rounds from the possession of accused
Saleem whereas one T.T. pistol 30 bore along with
loaded magazine containing three live rounds was recovered from the possession of
accused Muhammad Sajid, for which applicants/accused had
no licence. They were arrested in presence of mashirs, thereafter they were brought
at P.S where the aforesaid F.I.R.
was registered against them on behalf of State.
After usual investigation challan was
submitted against the accused under section 23(1)(a)
of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013.
Bail application was moved on behalf
of the applicant/accused before learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Karachi East, but the same was rejected by her vide order dated 30.06.2014.
Mr. Muhammad Kamran Khan, learned
advocate for the applicant/accused contended that all the P.Ws
are police officials and there is no question of
tampering with the evidence. It is also argued that pistol has been foisted
upon the accused by the police with ulterior motives. In support of the
contentions, reliance has been placed upon the case of Jamaluddin
alias Zubair Khan versus the State (2012 SCMR 573).
Mr. Abdullah Rajput, APG
appearing on behalf of the State argued that all the P.Ws
have implicated the accused in the commission of offence. Contradiction is
minor in nature, case is a fresh one and alleged offence falls within the
prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. He has opposed the bail application.
I am inclined to grant bail to the
applicant/accused for the reasons that from perusal of the F.I.R.
it transpires that it is mentioned that one 30 pistol was recovered from the
possession of the accused. It is further that all the prosecution witnesses are
police officials; case has already been challaned;
applicant is no more required for investigation. There is no apprehension of
tampering with the prosecution evidence. In Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act,
2013, it is provided that punishment of un-licensed arm may extend to ten years
and with fine. Needless to say that the Court while hearing a bail application
not to keep in view the maximum sentence provided by the Statute but the one
which is likely to be entailed in the facts and circumstances of the case. Rightly
reliance has been placed upon the case of Jamaluddin
alias Zubair Khan (supra). The fact that the Applicant
has been in jail since 13.04.2014, yet commencement of his trial let alone its
conclusion is not in sight, would also tilt the scales
of justice in favour of bail rather than jail. In the instant case, 30-bore
unlicensed pistol is alleged to have been recovered from possession of accused.
It has been argued that police has foisted the same upon the accused with
ulterior motives. Therefore, keeping in view facts and circumstances of the
case, prima facie, case against applicant/accused requires further inquiry as
contemplated under subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Applicant/accused Saleem
son of Abdul Sattar is admitted to bail subject to
his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousands Rupees), and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial
Court.
Needless, to mention here that the
observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence
trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant/accused.
JUDGE
Gulsher/PA