2004 PLP 1485 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF LEGHARI, J.‑‑‑We would like to dispose of Criminal Bail Applications Nos.573 of 2001 and 575 of 2001 by a single order as the same arise out of one order. Brief facts of the F.I.R. lodged by S.‑I.P. Muhammad Suleman, S.H.O., Police Station Looni Kot are that he alongwith his subordinate staff was on mobile in his area and when they reached near Police Post No.12, they received spy information that accused Souz Ali and Dhani Bux were keeping explosive substance with them in village Sodho Khan Khoso, for preparing the Bomb. The police on receiving such information at about 10‑00 a.m., proceeded to village Sodho Khan and when reached at the pointed venue, they saw two persons sitting in suspicion condition in a hit. They on seeing the police vehicle, tried to run away but the police surrounded and caught hold of them. The police made search of but and found one red coloured motorcycle bearing No.HDL No.9001, parked therein. They saw that one green plastic bag was lying there. The police opened the plastic bag and found four white plastic bags therein. They found some substance like soap in the aforesaid bag. On interrogation, the captured accused disclosed that the recovered substance was provided to them by one Shafi Muhammad Burfat about 4/5 days back. The police recovered explosive substance. On weighing the same it was found to be 7 Kg. and 250 grams. Some of the substance was separated for chemical examination. The police prepared such Mashirnama in presence of A.S.‑I. Ghulam Abbas and LNK Nike Nazir Ahmed. The accused and the recovered material were brought to police station where complainant lodged the F.I.R. against him. The police arrested accused Mir Dost on 9‑10‑2000 and he made judicial confession on the same day before Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M. Kotri. The challan has been submitted in the Court of Special Judge Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, Dadu where the accused are facing trial. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for accused Mir Dost that his name does not figure in the F.I.R. He has been implicated by co‑accused in his statement. The said statement is inadmissible in evidence. It is stated that he is involved in this case due to enmity with, co‑accused. His judicial confession has not been recorded in accordance with the provisions of law. The required sanction has not been obtained by the prosecution . The accused is in jail for the last about more than one year but no progress has been made by the prosecution. For accused Souz Ali, it is argued that the explosive substance has been planted upon him and the recovery is made in presence of police officers. He has been implicated by the co‑accused in his judicial confession, which cannot be used as evidence against accused Souz Ali. Further, the learned counsel adopted the same arguments advanced by Mr. Muhammad Yousif Leghari for accused Mir Dost. Learned Assistant A.‑G. appearing for the state has opposed the bail applications on the ground that accused Souz Ali was sitting in the straw hatchet but from where the explosive stuff was recovered. Huge quantity of explosive substance was recovered from his possession. The offence is heinous one and the accused do not deserve any leniency. The record shows that accused Souz Ali and Dhani Bux were found sitting in the but where the explosive substance was kept. The police recovered the A explosive substance in presence of Mashirs. The weight of recovered substance was 7 Kg. and 250 grams. The recovered substance was sent to Chemical Analyser, the report of which is positive. The police has no animosity with the accused. The offence with which the accused have been charged is punishable for imprisonment for life. Accused Mir Dost was arrested on 9‑10‑2000 and he confessed his guilt before the Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M. Kotri. The case has not yet proceeded. Sufficient material is appearing on record to show that the accused are guilty of the offence with which they have been charged. The offence is punishable for imprisonment for life and is heinous one. The accused does not deserve any leniency. The bail is declined. However, the people cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period without trial. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within three months after the receipt of this order. The risk would be of prosecution, if they fail to obtain sanction from the concerned quarter. The trial Court should transmit its progress report to the Additional Registrar of this Court after every date of hearing. H.B.T./M‑28/K Bail declined.