2016 P Cr (PLP)

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.

This common order shall dispose of captioned two bail applications filed on behalf of applicants Asif alias Asif Ali, Ali Muhammad, Mohabbat alias Mohabbat Khan, Habibullah, Yousif, Arbello, Muhammad Ramzan, Jaggan, Mirza and Riyasat, who are challaned in Crime No.109/2014, registered with Police Station Lakhi Gate, Shikarpur, under sections 395, 324, 353, 224, 225-A, 337-A(i), 427, 114, 504, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C., and their earlier bail applications were declined by the learned trial Court.

2. The relevant facts pertaining to the prosecution case are that allegedly applicants along with their 70/80 companions attacked upon police station, caused injuries to police personnel, damaged the official articles, snatched weapons from the police and forcibly taken away arrested accused, namely Sikander and Hussain Bux nominated in FIR No. 105 of 2014 of Police Station Lakhi Gate, hence instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for applicants contended that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the police in instant crime with ulterior motives as no such incident had ever occurred. He further contended that previously accused Bhai Khan had filed Crl. Misc. Application No. 709 of 2014, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, for lodgment of FIR against SHO and other police personnel. He further contended that subsequently said Bhai Khan also filed a Constitution Petition No.D-1394 of 2014, against SSP Shikarpur, and other police officials. He further contended that injuries caused to police officials, are by hard and blunt substances. He further contended that except sections 395 and 324, P.P.C, remaining sections are bailable. He further contended that offence under section 324, P.P.C. is not attracted as no firearm injury was caused by the accused persons, while offence under section 395, P.P.C. is punishable for ten years with lesser punishment of four years. He further empathized that SHO Police Station Lakhi Gate, Shikarpur, has falsely lodged instant FIR against the applicants, while female co-accused have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon case of Shehzore and another v. The State (2006 YLR 3167) and Shah Nawaz alias Shanoo (2014 PCr.LJ 482).

4. While controverting the submissions made by learned counsel for applicants, learned D.P.G. vehemently opposed grant of bail to applicants and contended that applicants have committed a serious offence by attacking on police station which shows that they are dangerous criminals. He also produced photographs regarding the damages caused to police station and also placed on record copies of newspapers in support of his contention. He further contended that accused Ramzan and Ghulam Nabi snatched rifles from the police personnel, which were subsequently recovered from their possession under mashirnama.

5. Perusal of the material available on record and consideration of arguments supported with case law emanate that admittedly accused Bhai Khan had filed Crl. Misc. Application No.709 of 2014 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, for lodgment of FIR against SHO and other police personnel, and subsequently, he also filed Constitutional Petition No.D-1394 of 2014, against same police officials regarding causing of harassment. However, the above referred lis have neither any nexus with the commission of alleged offence nor it would be beneficial for the purpose of bail.

6. Indeed, police personnel did not sustain any bullet injury, however, they sustained injuries by hard and blunt substances and such medical reports are also available on record. Moreover, the alleged incident was reported in daily newspapers, i.e. Daily Anjam, Sijj, Pak Sindh, Kaleem, Hilal e-Pakistan, Tameer-e-Sindh and Kawish, whereby such news was published regarding attacking upon police station, causing injuries to police personnel and taking away arrested accused persons, but it is for the learned trial Court to record evidence of the witnesses and thresh hold the truth by fixing the responsibility upon accused persons. It is well settled that while considering the bail application deeper appreciation of evidence is not admissible. The trial Court while dismissing the bail plea of the applicants has rightly observed that the act of accused while attacking upon police force inside the police station, causing damages to the official properties including the record and injuries to police force created sense of insecurity as well as affect the law and order situation. Moreover, the alleged offences fall within the compass of the restraining clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

7. It is well settled that each and every case is to be examined in view of its peculiar circumstances and accused could not claim the concession of bail as a matter of right in the cases wherein offence does not fall within compass of restraining clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), the Honorable Supreme Court has observed that grant of bail in bailable offence is a right while in non-bailable offences the grant of bail is not a right but concession and grace. In the case of Imtiaz Ahmed and another v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 545), the honorable Supreme Court has observed that that even in respect of offences not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. the Court may decline to admit an accused to bail if there existed or recognized exceptional circumstances.

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the applicants have failed to make out their case for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly, above referred bail applications stand dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the case and dispose of it within the period of two months and furnish such report to this Court through Additional Registrar. The concerned Jail Superintendent is directed to ensure production of accused persons before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. Learned trial Court may initiate coercive methods to procure the attendance of prosecution witnesses for timely disposal of the case. Copy of this order be transmitted to the learned trial Court, and the concerned Jail Superintendent for timely compliance. SL/Y-4/Sindh Applications dismissed.