2008 P Cr (PLP)

KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, J.

Applicant Raja alias Rashid seeks bail in Crime No.45 of 2008 of Police Station City, Jacobabad for offence under sections 324, 353, 401, 34, P.P.C. read with section 13, D.A.O. Brief facts of the case are that on- 9-2-2008 complainant H.C. Sabir Hussain Thaheem lodged report at Police Station City Jacobabad stating therein that on the day of incident he along with subordinate staff namely, H.C. Arbab Ali and P.C. Abdul Hadi left police station vide Roznamcha Entry No.28-1900 hours dated 9-2-2008 for patrolling in the area. While patrolling when they arrived at Eidgah they saw three persons standing at the wall of Eidgah. The culprits while seeing the police party tried to escape but the police warned to stop but after .taking out TT pistols they started firing at the police party. The police party retaliated but two of the culprits succeeded in running away while the applicant was apprehended at the spot along with TT pistol. Such Mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared at the spot and thereafter accused and the property were brought at Police Station City, Jacobabad where such cases were registered. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, relevant law and the case-law cited at the Bar specially, the unreported order passed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry (as he then was) of this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.10 of 1983 in the case of Muhammad Panah and another v. The State for offence under sections 380/460, P.P.C. wherein bail was granted in the identical circumstances. Respectfully I am in agreement with the authority cited at the Bar wherein it has been mentioned that the accused persons were apprehended at the spot, recovery has been effected from the accused no injuries were caused to the complainant party and the accused/petitioners were in custody without any trial for more than three months and they were admitted to bail. In the present case, the accused is in custody since 9-2-2008. It appears on the record that there was an enmity with the elders of the applicant and the F.I.R. was lodged/drafted by police against 3/31 persons whereas in the border showing 03/31 persons. It creates doubt either three persons were shown correctly or 31 persons. It further appears on the record that neither lodger or drafter made their signatures, while rubbing 31 words. It is not clear whether the culprits were 03/31 hence it is a matter of further enquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The prosecution also failed to mention the outcome of the investigation in respect of commission of alleged offence under section 401, P.P.C., that for what purpose the accused were standing at the place of the incident. The case, in my considered opinion, is of further enquiry. The learned State Counsel also conceded the position and gave no objection for grant of bail to the accused. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that it is a case of further enquiry, therefore, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. He is allowed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./R-25/K?????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.