2015 PLP 1488 (YLR)

WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.

Petitioner who is charged in a case registered against him under sections 324/ 353, P.P.C. read with section 5 Explosive Substances Act/15AA Arms Act, vide FIR No.10 dated 15-1-2015 in Police Station CTD, Peshawar, sought his release on bail mainly on the grounds that he has no nexus with the offence and that there is no ocular or circumstantial evidence which could connect him with the commission of the crime and his case is one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail.

2. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that according to the data available on the record, the petitioner being linked with the commission of a crime attracting prohibitory clause, does not deserve the concession of bail.

3. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

4. Though according to the FIR, the firing between the Police party and the persons sought to be detained remained started for seven minutes but the learned State counsel when asked, what would be the transparency of the controversy narrated in the FIR, when neither anybody has been shown injured in the cross-firing nor any bullet scratch has been noticed on the wall of the Hujra, he could not give any satisfactory explanation which could be termed plausible. It is strange that the persons sought to be apprehended made their escape good and instead one of the inmates of the Hujra, petitioner herein, was arrested from the house. How all this happened and how the petitioner can be linked with the crime, he is charged with, is yet to be determined at the trial. It is also evident from the record that Bahar Gul, the brother of the petitioner, filed a writ petition against respondents Nos.3 to 7 alleging therein that on 11-1-2015 at about 02.00 p.m., the aforementioned respondents accompanied with other Police officials, raided the house of the petitioner taking forcibly Rs.25,00,000 therefrom, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 15-1-2015. The difference between the date "regarding the raid asserted in the writ petition and the date on which the FIR was lodged, if seen in the surrounding circumstances, are the questions which find no plausible answer from the record. When this being the position, I do not think that the petitioner can be linked with a crime attracting prohibitory clause. The case of the petitioner being arguable for the purpose of bail calls for further inquiry.

5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition for bail is allowed and direct the release of the petitioner, provided, he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who is to ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. HBT/177/P Bail granted.