2017 PLP 732 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.

The applicant/accused Husnain Shah, through instant application claims his release on post arrest bail in Crime No.12 / 2016 registered at Police Station Matli for the offence under section 23(i)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013. He preferred such application No.178/2016 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Matli, his request was turned down in terms of order dated 11.03.2016.

2. Per prosecution case, the police party headed by Inspector Muhammad Nawaz Sirai, Police Line, Badin left police line Badin on 10.02.2016 at 1600 hours, in connection with investigation of Crime No.11/2016, under sections 324, 353, 337-H(2), 35, P.P.C. read with sections 6/7 ATA, 1997. When they reached at Phalkara Chowk Matli town they had spy information to the effect, the nominated accused of FIR No.11/2016 of Police Station Matli namely, Husnain Shah and Saleem Shah are waiting for transport at Matli Tando Muhammad Khan link road near Nizamani Mohalla. On receipt of such information, the police party proceeded towards pointed place where at 1500 hours, saw two persons were standing who by seeing police party tried to run away but were apprehended by them. On inquiry one of them disclosed his name to be present applicant. On his personal search, a .12-bore pistol along with three live cartridges was recovered and he failed to produce any valid license for same. It is alleged further, the police party after recovery of the weapon sealed it. Due to non-availability of independent person, the complainant by citing SIP Muhammad Panah Gopang and P.C. Muhammad Essa as mashirs prepared the memo of recovery and arrest. Thereafter, the police party returned back to Police Station Matli along with arrested accused and the property. After completion of investigation and legal formalities, they submitted the challan before the Court of law having jurisdiction on 29.02.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the weapon was not recovered from the possession of applicant nor he had produced the same before police and same has been foisted upon him by the police aims to strengthen the rope of their false cases in terms of FIR No.11/2016 lodged by police. He further submitted that series of cases starts from the Crime No.09/2016 being cocked-up against the applicant and their family on behalf of their rival group who is highly influential and the police is also acting on their behalf. That the present offence is off-shoot of main Crime No.11/2016, in which the applicant has been granted bail by this Court, therefore, in the instant case, he may also be extended the concession of bail. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the case of 'Ayaz Ali v. The State' reported as PLD 2014 Sindh 282 and 2016 YLR 32 (Sindh).

4. On the other hand, learned A.D.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the offensive weapon was recovered from the possession of applicant, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of bail.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by either side and have gone through the record made available before me.

6. Since the applicant has been granted bail in main case and present case being off-shoot of the same deserves to be released on bail and requires further inquiry. I find force in the arguments of learned defense counsel and in view of the judgments of this Court I am also fortified with the view of this Court taken in case of 'Muhammad Nabi v. The State' vide 2014 MLD 1783 and is of the opinion that case against the applicant requires further inquiry. As far as the working condition of the alleged weapon is concerned, no Ballistic Expert or Forensic Opinion is available to show whether it was in working condition or not. The applicant has successfully made out a good prima facie case for his release on bail, therefore, in the circumstances his case requires further inquiry and consequently, instant application is allowed. However, the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and may not influence to learned trial Court while deciding the case on merits. The applicant was granted bail on furnishing his solvent surety in sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court by my short order dated 29.08.2016 and these are the reasons for same. WA/H-18//Sindh Bail granted.