1992 PLP 2467 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 26th August, 19'

92. This bail application has been filed on behalf of Rajab, Ismail and Karim Bux alias Karo, who, alongwith Mohram and Yar Muhammad, have been challaned for offences under sections 324, 353, 402, 149, 148, P.P.C. as amended. Briefly the facts of the case are that Altaf Hussain Qaudri, S.D.I.P. Naraveli at Umer Kot, lodged an F.I.R. on behalf of the State at Satellite Town Police Station on 30‑4‑1992, in which he stated that on that day he received information at about 16‑00 hours from S.S.P. Mirpurkhas through wireless that he should make himself available at Police Station Sattelite Town, Mirpurkhas as the latter had received spy information that the gang of dacoits Jamun Panhwar and Sher Panhwar were seen in Mirpurkhas Taluka and they had come there with a view to commit heinous crimes. He, alongwith staff reached Satellite Town at 17‑00 hours in the mobile van alongwith D.S.P. Ghulam Sarwar Memon. S.D.P.O. Digri also reached there in his mobile with Inspector Raja Karamat accompanied by his staff and S.I.Ps. Sher Khan and Karrar Hussain Shah and Inspector Muhammad Qasim Ghauri. Muhammad Abid S.H.O. of Satellite Town Police Station was also present there alongwith staff. All the above police officers alongwith A.S.I. Ramzan, the foot tracker left the said Police Station at 17‑10 hours and reached the place called Dargah Jumman Shah at about 18‑00 hours. Some of them entered into the jungle from the North and some of them from the South side to conduct search. In the meanwhile they were fired at from inside the jungle. The police party took position and fired in self‑defence. They encircled the dacoits and asked them to surrender themselves and should throw away their weapons. On this command the dacoits surrendered. From Mohram Panhwar, the police recovered Klashnikov and a magazine containing 5 bullets, from Yar Muhammad Panhwar, one gun of .12 bore, from applicant Rajah AIL a TT pistol with 6 bullets, from applicant Ismail, a revolver with 3 bullets and from applicant Karim Bux alias Karo, a .12 bore gun with belt containing cartridges. Two culprits Jamum Panhwar and Soomar alias Sher Panhwar made good their escape. The above applicants applied for bail before the trial Court which dismissed the bail application of all the 3 applicants by orders dated 15‑6‑1992 and 10‑8‑1992. I have heard Mr. Hemraj I. Karmani for the applicants and Mr. Riyaz Ahmed for the State. The learned Advocate for the applicants has contended that the prosecution story is preposterous and highly improbable. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants had committed the offences with which they have been charged and, it is improbable that though the culprits had fired at the police but none of the police personnel suffered any injury. It was contended by the learned counsel that it is a case of ineffective firing and requires further inquiry into the guilt of the applicants. He has relied on Manzoor and 4 others v. The State P L D 1992 SC 81, Shah Muhammad Khan and another v. The State 1991 P Cr. L J 65, Muhammad Zaman and 2 others v. The State 1991 P Cr. L J 1514, Abdul Latif v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J

452. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State relied upon Gul Sher and others v. The State 1989 S C M R 242 and Rashid v. The State 1989 SCMR

260. No doubt, in the last three cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicants, one of the reasons for granting the bail was ineffective firing but the facts of the said cases have no resemblance with the facts of the present case. Similarly the case of Manzoor and 4 others (supra) also does not advance the submissions of the learned counsel. However, the case of Gul Sher and others (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the State, is very near to the facts of the present case. In the said case the police, while on patrolling duty, came across 5 persons, including the petitioner standing duly armed at the border of Jhab Forest. On seeing the police party, the petitioner and his companions started running away, but they were chased and while the two companions of the petitioners made good their escape, the petitioners were apprehended with one gun and two revolvers with cartridges in a bag were secured from them. The petitioners in that case were charged with offences under sections 399, 491 and 492, P.P.C. Similarly, in the case of Rashid v. The State (supra), the bail application was urged on the ground of ineffective firing but the said contention was repelled and, therefore, it was open to question whether Klashnikov was at all possessed by the petitioner. In this case also the petitioner before their arrest had fired at the police party alongwith his companions who managed to escape. There is nothing unusual if the policemen were not injured in the cross‑firing between them and the dacoits. The grant of bail in case of ineffective firing is neither a rule of law, nor can be treated as a rule of prudence. Bail in each case is to be considered on its own merits as facts differ from case to case. I also do not see any improbability in the facts of this case nor there is anything on record or in the nature of the incident to call it preposterous. The applicants were arrested with weapons and so also the other two accused who have not applied for bail. The learned counsel also feebly contended that the applicants have been granted bail against the separate cases filed against them under the Arms Act and, therefore, the bail should be granted to them in the present case also. The submission is without any substance and is hereby overruled. I do not find any reason to grant the bail. The learned trial Court has also refused the bail for good reasons. This bail application is, therefore, dismissed. N.H.Q./R‑222/K Bail refused.