2020 PLP 1331 (YLR)

KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, J.

Through instant bail application, applicant seeks post arrest bail in case bearing Crime No. 423 of 2018 registered at Police Station Brigade for offences under sections 147/148/149/353/324/34/186/427/ 337-A(i), P.P.C. read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

2. Precisely, facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant along with S.I.P Deen Muhammad and other subordinates were providing security to a rally of Dawat-e-Islami on the event of 12th Rabi-ul-Awwal. One of the vehicles in the rally had loud speakers and the leaders of the rally were chanting Naats on it. While travelling on the route to Madrasa Abu-ul-Hanifa Sector-I, Majeed Colony, when the rally was crossing a mosque, few people came out from the mosque and asked leaders of the said rally to turn off the loud speakers as it was time for Maghrib prayers time. A quarrel started amongst both the parties. Accused Shafi-ul-Allah Niazi, Umair, Rahmat son of Feroz, Aftab Shoaib son of Noor Alam, Dr. Faisal, Noushad, Abid, Zubair, Nihal, Nouman, Afaq and others were riding in cars whereas 15 to 20 who were riding on motorcycles along with and 50 to 60 others approached the rally and started firing and stoning. Due to stoning, police mobile and other vehicles parked in the area were damaged. Several people including police officers received injuries. Complainant/SIP informed concerned S.H.O. and on such information the S.H.O. along with his subordinate staff reached at the place of incident and caught hold five of accused whereas the rest left. The arrested accused disclosed the name of one of the absconding accused as Saqib. Thereafter, accused were brought at P.S. where the FIR under the above referred section was registered.

3. After registration of FIR, applicant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter applicant filed his first post arrest bail application before the Special Court of learned 1st Anti-Terrorism Court, Karachi which was rejected vide order dated 17.12.2018, hence this bail application.

4. It was mainly contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had been falsely implicated by the police with mala fide intentions; that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the applicant; that the applicant's name was not disclosed in the FIR which was registered on 21.11.2018 and he was arrested with a delay of three days; that the police has dragged the applicant in the present case falsely as the name pertaining in the FIR is Aftab Shoaib son of Noor Alam whereas the name of applicant is Aftab Ahmed Khan son of Ahmed Khan and the memo of arrest of the applicant shows that the Investigation Officer suggested that the name of the applicant was present in the FIR; that the police has failed to bring any witness to recognize and identify the applicant; that the prosecution case is full of doubts and the benefit for the same should be given to the applicant; that no independent witnesses were taken even though there were several persons available due to rally; that it is alleged that shots were fired during the incident, but neither of the side received any injuries therefore the case is of ineffective firing; that all the sections the applicant stands charged with are bailable except for section 7 A.T.A to which can only be determined at trial; that all the witnesses are police officials, therefore there is no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence; that co-accused have been granted bail by the learned Special Judge VII A.T.C.; that the investigation has already been completed and further detention of the applicant is unjustified, therefore, he prays that the applicant be admitted to post arrest bail.

5. Learned Addl. P.G. on the other hand half-heartedly opposed the grant of bail to the applicant.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.G. and have perused the relevant record.

7. From the perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the incident was in daylight; that none from either of the parties received any injuries even though it was alleged that shots were fired. Perusal of record further revealed that no independent person was cited as mashir from the public as even though the incident took place around a huge crowd, nor was anything recovered from the possession of the applicant neither has he pointed out any crime weapon allegedly used by him. So also, nothing was recovered from the co-accused who was allegedly arrested from the place of scene.

8. Besides that, it appears that the investigation has completed and the applicant is no longer required for further investigation. It is further observed that the liberty of any person cannot be curtailed without any lawful justification and same is the case of the applicant who is behind the bars since the day of his arrest. All the P.Ws. are police officials and no efforts were made by the police to associate any independent person of the locality. There is no question of tampering with any evidence since all the P.Ws are police officials.

9. In the light of above discussion and circumstances, the applicant was admitted to post arrest bail vide short order dated 07.01.2019, and these are the reasons for the same. ADN/A-109/Sindh Bail allowed.