2011 PLP 1185 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.

This bail application is directed against the order dated 29-4-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze whereby declining the bail to the present applicant, who is wanted in F.I.R. Crime No.131 of 2009 Police Station, Naushahro Feroze registered for offence under sections 324, 353, 402, 399, 337-F(ii) & 427, P.P.C. Prosecution story is that the case was initiated on an F.I.R. lodged at the instance of A.S.-I. Arbab Ali Mari on behalf of the State on 26-7-2009 at 0600 hours alleging therein that police party left the police station vide Entry No.25 dated 25-7-2009 at 1900 hours for patrolling and during patrolling when they reached at Darro Sunny Pump on 26-7-2009 at 0030 hours they saw on the light of vehicle 13 persons including present applicant Munawar having Kalashinkovs, Rifles and Guns standing on the western side of the road and on seeing .the police party, the accused made straight firing upon the police party and in exchange the police also made firing, in the result S.H.O. Long Khan Sitar received fire shot injury on his leg. The encounter took place between the accused and police which continued for about 20 minutes; hence the F.I.R. was lodged as stated above. Learned counsel for the applicant' has argued that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. He further argued that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are general in nature and a large number of persons have been implicated in this case. He submitted that no recovery was effected from the present applicant and even his arrest was made on 14-2-2010. He also submitted that the presence of present applicant at the place of wardhat is also doubted and benefit of doubt at the bail stage be extended to the present applicant. He further submitted that the S.H.O. who sustained injury as per prosecution has not been cited as witness in the charge-sheet. He also further submitted that all the police officials have cooked-up the story and no private person has been included in the entire transaction. On the other hand learned A.P.-G. for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that in the encounter a police officer has sustained injury at the hands of accused persons. He further submitted that from the place of wardhat 10 empties of .12 bore rifle and 25 empties of Kalashinkov were recovered. He supports the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.-G. for the State and have perused the record. It is settled law that at the bail stage evidence cannot be appreciated and only bird-eye view is to be kept on record just to find out as to whether .26 the present applicant is connected with the commission of alleged offence or not. From the reading of F.I.R. it appears that the allegations made therein are general in nature and no specific role whatsoever has been assigned to the present applicant. In the circumstances I am of the view that the case falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further enquiry at the trial. Accordingly I allow this application and admit the applicant to bail. He shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rs.two lac) only and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Application stands disposed of along with listed MAs. H.B.T./M-138/K Bail granted.