1989 P Cr (PLP)

Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 11th August, 1988. The applicants are facing trial under sections 307. 353, 436, 435, 427, 147 and 148 before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that on 17‑7‑1988 Khursheed Khokhar A.S.I.‑Market P.S. Hyderabad, lodged a report, inter alia, alleging therein that he alongwith his subordinate staff had gone for patrolling duty and when they reached near Civil Hospital, at 12‑00 noon he received spy information on wireless to proceed towards O.P.D. Civil Hospital, Hyderabad and as such they went inside the hospital. When they reached near the gate of the hospital about 100/150 persons started pelting stones at them. He informed about the situation on wireless and requested for further police aid and, therefore, some constables and head constables alongwith Mr. Allah Bachayo A.C.M. Market reached there. The persons standing there started firing at the police party with the intention to kill them. Some of them were standing inside the hospital whit. some were outside the hospital. The assailants set on fire the vehicles parked on Bhurgari Road and some motorcycles. They also damaged the shops in the vicinity. However, the police party was able to catch hold of present applicants and Muhammad Sabir, Muhammad Naeem and Muhammad Arif. Police also recovered unlicensed revolver's from the possession of the present applicants. The applicants moved an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, but the same was rejected while co‑accused Naeem was granted bail on the ground that he was found empty‑handed. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that except offences under sections 307 and 436, P.P.C. the other offences are not punishable with even 10 years. No specific role was assigned to the present applicants and none from the police party was injured in the incident. He has further contended that the revolvers have been foisted upon the applicants inasmuch as the revolver recovered from one applicant belongs to the father of the other. Lastly, he has contended that the time of arrest and the F.I.R. is. same which makes the prosecution story doubtful. The learned AA.‑G. has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicants on the ground that there are as many as 10 eye‑witnesses in the case and all of them have assigned the role of leading the mob by the applicants. In the incident seven vehicles were burnt and six shops were looted and set on fire. The incident is a recent incident and the offences are of heinous ‑nature. The applicants were caught red handed from the place of incident duly armed with fire‑arms, and, therefore, they were not entitled to bail. I have considered the contentions, of the learned counsel. It is the prosecution case that the applicants were caught from the place of Wardat and were immediately taken to the P.S. Market where report was lodged by the complainant. Revolvers were recovered from the applicants, and it is the case of the prosecution witnesses that the at4plicants were leading the mob at the time of incident. Seven vehicles were burnt, and six shops were looted and set on fire. The applicants belonged to Lateefabad, Hyderabad and their presence and arrest at the place of Wardat with fire‑arms clearly indicate their participation. The incident is a recent incident and the offences with which the applicants are charged are heinous in nature. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the applicants are not entitled to bail at this stage and the application is, therefore, dismissed. However, the applicants can repeat their bail application before the learned trial Judge after the complainant and two material witnesses are examined. M.Y.H./M‑623/K Bail refused.