ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.644 of 2015
Criminal Bail
Application No.887 of 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF
JUDGE(S)
Date of hearing
: 12.08.2015
Date
of Announcement: 24.08.2015
Syed Bashir Hussain Shah, advocate for
applicants (in Cr. B.As Nos.644/2015
and 645/2015)
Mr. Muhammad Haroon,
advocate for applicant (in Cr. B. A. No.887/2015)
Mr. Abrar
Ali Khichi, A.P.G.
-----------------------------
By this
order I will dispose of above said bail after arrest applications moved on
behalf of applicants/accused Abdul Basit and Shahzaib in Crime No.86/2015, registered
at P.S. Al-Falah, Karachi, under sections 353/324/ 34
PPC.
Brief facts
of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R.
are that on 22.04.2014, ASI Abid
Soomro of P.S. Al-Falah
left police station along with his subordinate staff. When
they reached at Zamzama curve, opposite Zamzama store, Shamsi Society, Malir Karachi, where they saw two persons on the motorcycle
in suspicious manner. Police party signaled them to stop but the speed
of the motorcycle was accelerated. It is alleged that both accused fired upon
police party with intention to kill. Police party also fired in self defence.
Thereafter, accused Basit son of Tabassum
Ali was arrested and from his possession one 30 bore T.T.
pistol was recovered. From another accused, who disclosed his name as Shahzaib, one Q-Mobile B-60 was recovered. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged against accused under section 324, 353,
34 PPC. Separate F.I.R.
against accused Basit under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 was also lodged. Motorcycle
was also recovered from the accused under section 550 Cr.PC.
After usual
investigation challan was submitted against the applicants/accused. Bail
application was moved on behalf of applicants/accused before learned Additional
Sessions Judge-VI, Karachi East, the same was rejected vide orders dated
23.05.2015. Thereafter, applicants/accused approached this Court for the
similar relief.
It is
contended by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused that it is the case
of ineffective firing; no one had received injury from either side; case has
already been challaned and the applicants/accused are
no more required for investigation. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel for the applicants/accused relied upon the case of Ashfaq
Kareem alias Khalil-ur-Rehman versus the State (2009 PCr.LJ
679).
Mr. Abrar Ali Khichi, learned
Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh, opposed the bail application on the ground
that accused were arrested at the spot. He has further
argued that case is fresh one and it falls within the prohibitory clause of
section 497 Cr.PC.
I am
inclined to grant bail to the applicants/accused for the reasons that this is
the case of ineffective firing; yet intention of the accused is yet to be
determined at trial. After usual investigation case has been challaned. All the PWs are police
officials; there is no question of tampering with the evidence. It is the case of the prosecution that there
was firing from both the sides, it is strange that none received injury. While
relying upon the above cited authority, prima facie, case against the applicants/accused
requires further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2) Cr.PC. Concession
of bail is extended to the applicants/accused subject to their furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/-
(Rupees One lac only) each and P.R
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Needless to
mention that the above observations are tentative in nature and the trial Court
shall not be influenced by the same at the time of deciding the case of the
applicant/accused on merits.
JUDGE
Gulsher/PA