2011 MLD 389 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.

All the three applicants, namely Muhammad Sharif, Madad Ali and Bashir Ahmed, who are booked in Crime No. 198 of 2009 registered with Police Station A-section, Khairpur, under sections 324,353,148,149, P.P.C., read with section 7 ATA and 13(d) A.O. seek post arrest bail. The bail application moved on behalf of the applicants was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 12-4-2010. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as set-out in the F.I.R. are that on 9-9-2009 complainant SIP Muhammad Faheem Naeem Abro, the S.H.O. P.S.A-section, Khairpur lodged F.I.R. alleging inter-alia therein that on the said day, he along with his staff was patrolling the area and when reached near railway crossing Thehri, he received spy information that notorious dacoit Abdul Haq alias Rano Jagirani with his gang consisting of absconding accused Mir Muhammad Shaikh were available in the house of Muhammad Sharif Sahikh situated in Saleemabad Mohalla. On receipt of such information, complainant through wireless asked S.H.O. Imam Bux Korai of Police Station B-section. Khairpur to reach at the spot. Said S.H.O. along with his staff also reached at the spot and on the light of bulbs, they noticed presence of 8/9 armed persons over the roof of house of Muhammad Sharif. Police party directed dacoit Abdul Haq to surrender before the police, on which accused persons started straight firing upon police with intention to kill them. In retaliation, police also started firing and during this encounter S.H.O. Iman Bux Korai A.S.-I. Ghulam Asghar and P.C. Shahbazdino sustained fire-arm injuries at the hands of accused. They were taken to civil hospital immediately but S.H.O. Imam Bux Korai succumbed to the injuries. After the encounter lasted, police party succeeded to apprehend ten accused persons, named in the F.I.R. including present applicants and recovered fire-arm weapons from their possession. They also disclosed the names of 26 escaped accused persons. Police party also recovered narcotics substances from the possession of the arrested accused persons. After completing all legal formalities, above F.I.R. was lodged. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that as many as ten accused persons are cited in the F.I.R. and 26 accused persons ran away. He further submitted that allegations are general in nature and no direct allegation against the present applicants has been made in the F.I.R. Learned counsel has further argued that other co-accused, namely, Manthar, Shahbazdino, Riaz Ali, Abdul Ghaffar and Abdul Waheed have been granted bail by the trial Court, but bail to present applicants has been wrongly denied by the trial Court. He further submitted that similar treatment as to that of co-accused who have been granted bail by the trial Court be extended to the present applicants and they may also be admitted to bail. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied upon the cases of 1995 SCMR 1765 and 2009 YLR 1382. As against above learned, DPG has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and has submitted that contradictory view by the trial Court has been taken while passing order on the bail application of co-accused Shahbazdino and Manthar. He submitted that orders passed by the trial Court in case of Manthar and Shahbazdino are available on record judicial notice be taken and notice for cancellation of bail be issued to co-accused Manthar and Shahbazdino. He further pointed out that bail to co-accused Manthar was granted on 6-4-2010, but by consent of prosecution. Similarly, he pointed out that bail to co-accused Shabbazdino, Abdul Waheed and Saeed Ahmed was granted to them on 12-4-2010, but that was also by consent of prosecution. Hence, such consent orders cannot be made basis for grant of bail to the applicants. He further submitted that direct role has been assigned to the applicants. They were arrested from the scene of offence and crime weapons were also recovered from the place of incident. He further pointed out that applicant Muhammad Sharif was armed with rifle. Madad Ali with SBBL gun and Bashir Ahmed was also armed with gun. He further pointed out that empties fired from their weapons were also recovered from the place of offence. In this way applicants are connected with the commission of offence and they are not entitled to bail. He further invited our attention to the statement of injured Shahbazdino, wherein said injured has fully implicated the applicants with the commission of offence. He also invited our attention to the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. of injured Ghulam Asghar who has also implicated the applicants with the commission of offence. Based on the above material, learned D.P.G. submitted that trial Court has rightly rejected bail to the applicants and similar treatment be given by this court as well. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is settled law that at the bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be gone into but only it is to be seen as to whether accused persons are prima-facie connected with the commission of offence or not. Keeping in mind the above rule, if the record of this case is examined it will be noticed that present applicants were arrested from the scene of offence. Crime weapons were also recovered from them. Empties from their weapons were also recovered from the scene of offence and upon examination by the Ballistic Expert were fired from the recovered weapons. All the P. Ws. in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. and examination of statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. of injured Shahbazdino and Ghulam Asghar clearly implicate the three applicants in the commission of offence. In our view prima-facie applicants are connected with the offence and they are not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. Accordingly, their bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./170/K Bail refused.