1994 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/353/402/399/147/148/149/ 324

West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-D

Bail, grant of

Accused going along a way armed with weapons could not be presumed to be going to commit dacoity

None of the Police Personnel or Army Jawan had received any injury during the occurrence

Case against accused needed further inquiry

Accused were granted bail in circumstances. Muhammad Ayub v. The State 1990 P Cr. L J 41 ref. Jai Jai Vishno for Applicants. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, AA.-G. for the State. The applicants are involved in Crime No.128/1993 of Police Station Ghotki recorded on 6-8-1993 at Police Post Adilpur and on 7-8-1993 at Police Station Ghotki at the instance of A.S.I. Baderuddin Bhutto of Police Post Adilpur under sections 307, 353, 402, 399, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. 324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and 13(D), Arms Ordinance. As per contents of the F.I.R. a police party left Police Post Adilpur for patrolling duty vide Roznamcha Entry No.5, dated 6-8-1993 at 18-00 hours and commenced patrolling in concert with personnel of Law Enforcement Agency. They went to Adilpur Link Road towards Khanpur and when they reached the bridge of Kazi Wah at 21-30 hours they saw 7 persons, two with guns, one with revolver, one with pistol, two were with hatchets and one was with Lathi. These persons started firing upon the police party on which the police returned the fire and succeeded in apprehending' all of them. The two persons with guns are applicants 1 and 2 Rano and Rehmatullah, the person with revolver gave his name as Muhammad Hassan applicant No.4, the person who was armed with pistol gave his name as Shah Murdan applicant No.7, the persons who were armed with hatchets gave their names as Wazir and Sultan respondent 3 and 5 and the person who was armed with Lathi gave his name as Ghulam Hussain respondent No.6. These persons moved the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Ghotki for grant of bail but their application was rejected vide order, dated 3-10-1993. Hence this application. Learned counsel of the applicant contends that offence under section 399, P.P.C. has not been made out in view of the observation made in the case of Muhammad Ayub v. The State. 1990 P Cr. L J 41 in which it is held that evidence collected by the police during investigation suggesting that the accused while armed with deadly weapons were found sitting in graveyard did not make out a case of preparation to commit dacoity and therefore, the case required further enquiry entitling the accused for grant of bail. The facts of this judgment fully apply to the present case. In fact the applicants were not even found sitting in graveyard. They were going along a way and merely because they were armed with weapons it cannot be presumed that they were going to commit dacoity. As such the case is certainly of further enquiry so far as the offence under section 399, P.P.C. is concerned and so far section 307, P.P.C. is concerned none of the police personnel or Army Jawan has received any injury. In view of the above-quoted judgment the applicants appear to be entitled to bail. I would, therefore, grant bail to the applicants in the sum of Rs. one lac each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. N.H.Q./R-268/K Bail granted.