2002 PLP 1012 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.‑‑‑Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applicant has prayed for bail as he is facing trial in Special Case No.62 of 1999 arising out of F.I.R. Crime No.202 of 1998 registered at Police Station Khardar under sections 3/4, Explosive Substances Act. The facts as narrated in the F.I.R. are that complainant A.S.‑I. Mushtaq Ahmed alongwith staff was present on duty at Stock Exchange when at about 1215 hours he heard bomb‑blast and when he reached at the pointed place he saw some vehicles had caught fire and some persons were raising commotion. Several people were injured due to bomb blast. Application for bail filed by the applicant was rejected by the Trial Court vide order, dated 7‑7‑2001. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that co‑accused namely Abdul Majeed has already been granted bail and that the case of present applicant is on better footing than that of co‑accused. He submits that confessional statement recorded by the co‑accused will not be enough to connect the present applicant with the commission of crime. He further urged that absconsion in the case was not noticeable as neither the name of applicant appeared in F.I.R. nor his address was mentioned in the charge‑sheet. Mr. Habib Ahmed, learned A.A.‑G. has frankly conceded that the offence, if any, alleged against the present applicant falls under section 212, P.P.C. which is bailable, therefore, he does not oppose the grant of bail to the present applicant. We have perused the F.I.R. and the challan. The applicant is not nominated in the F.I.R. and the address of the applicant does not find mention in the charge‑sheet. In the circumstances, the abscondance of the applicant was not noticeable. He was only implicated by a co accused. Accused Abdul Majeed was granted bail in this case vide order, dated 13‑7‑2001 by a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Muhammad Mposa Khan Laghari, J.) was a member. In that application confessional statement recorded by the co‑accused was not held to be confessional evidence to believe that accused Abdul Majeed was guilty of the alleged offence. Rule of consistency demands that the present applicant be granted bail on this ground. However, the case of the applicant is on better footing than that of co‑accused Abdul Majeed as the allegation against him is that he was involved in harbouring the offenders. Learned A.A.‑G. has conceded the grant of bail to applicant stating that the offence is bailable and punishment provided therefor is five years. In the circumstances we grant bail to applicant Khalid Masood son of Abbas Ali, upon his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like I amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. H.B.T./K‑51/K Bail granted.