2017 PLP 54 (YLRN)

MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.

The applicant/accused Din Muhammad Marri, through instant application seeks his release on post arrest bail in crime No.04/2016 registered at Police Station Taluka Nawabshah for the offence under section 23/25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, whereby he stand booked by the Inspector Habib-ur-Rehman Lashari, SHO P.S. Taluka Nawabshah. The bail plea on his behalf was moved before learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad in S.C. No.36 / 2016, (The State v. Din Muhammad Marri) but it was turned down vide order dated 04.07.2016.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that the police party headed by Inspector/SHO Habib-ur-Rehman Lashari of P.S. Taluka Nawabshah left P.S. along with his subordinates namely ASI Syed Abrar Hussain Shah, H.C. Syed Ahmed Ali Shah, P.C. Atehar Hussain, P.C. Abdul Qudoos along with driver H.C. Habibullah Sandelo under their police diary entry No.07 on 04.01.2016 at 1100 hours in official vehicle bearing No.SP-064 in connection with the investigation of crime No.71/2015, under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. and in connection with crime No.03/2016 under section 23/25A, Sindh Arms Act, 2013 along with prepared mashirnama and the accused viz-a-viz. the present applicant Din Muhammad proceeded towards village Bhurgri Bridge of Taluka Nawabshah and recovered a country made pistol with wooden butt of 12-bore and two live cartridges of 12-bore in white color. Later they have brought the property and accused at PS got registered present case on behalf of the State. After completion of legal formalities, submitted the challan before the competent Court of law having jurisdiction on 16.01.2016.

3. The applicant who according to present FIR was nominated in FIR No.71/2015 registered at PS Taluka Nawabshah District Shaheed Benazirabad for offence punishable under sections 324, 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. was also sent up to face the trial in that murder case. Copy of said FIR has also been placed with file as annexure-D available at page-39 of the file.

4. Mr. Mushtaque Ali Tagar, learned counsel for the applicant/accused contends that the applicant has been granted post arrest bail in main case crime No.71 / 2015 registered with PS Taluka Nawabshah for offence under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad on 28.05.2016. The present case being off-shoot of main case, required to be considered at bail stage as according to him, he had never used the same in main case and such contention is supported by bail granting order dated 28.05.2016 whereby he was granted bail on the ground that no specific role of firing upon deceased or any injury caused to deceased or the PWs, is assigned to him. He, therefore, in support of his contentions has placed reliance upon the case of 'Ayaz Ali v. The State' reported as PLD 2014 Sindh 282 and 2016 YLR 32 (Sindh). Lastly he submits that case against the applicant/accused requires further inquiry and he may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.D.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the bail plea on the ground that the offensive weapon was recovered on his pointation and therefore, he does not deserve the concession of post arrest bail.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by either side and have gone through the record and material placed before me.

7. It is admitted position of record, alleged weapon allegedly recovered upon the pointation of present applicant was not used in alleged commission of main offence viz-a-viz in crime No.71/2015, in which case he has been bailed out by the learned trial Court and certified copy of order dated 28.05.2016 has already been placed on record as annexure-E available at page-45 of the file.

8. Since he has been granted bail in main case and involvement of the applicant in this offshoot/connected crime is to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording some evidence. To keep him behind the bars, particularly, when he has been granted bail in main case, will not serve any purpose as he is no more required for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. I am also fortified with the view of this Court taken in case of 'Muhammad Nabi v. The State', reported as 2014 MLD 1783. Therefore, case of applicant requires further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

9. In the circumstances, in view of the above submissions and law citation (supra) the applicant has, prima facie, made out a good case for his release on bail. Consequently, instant application was allowed and applicant was granted bail on furnishing of his solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court by my short order dated 29.08.2016 and these are the reasons for same. JK/D-19/Sindh Bail granted.