2000 P Cr (PLP)

The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicant/ accused Abdul Hannan is facing trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi in a case under sections 452, 353, 324 and 34, P.P.C., which. has arisen out of F.I.R. No.225 of 1998 of Police Station Gulzar e‑Hijri, Karachi.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as disclosed in the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Muhammad Ilyas on 30‑11‑1998, are that at about 1‑00 p.m. the present applicant alongwith his two companions barged into the house of complainant and enquired from him about Hanif, who lives with him. They disclosed that they have some work with him. Complainant felt that they had fire‑arms whereupon he raised cries and called neighbours. On this the culprits started running. The Mohalla people Abdul Razak and others came there and they tried to apprehend them. The police also reached the scene in the meantime. On seeing the police party culprits opened fire upon the police. The police fired back in their self‑defence. .One of the culprits, whose name was subsequently, disclosed as Rahim alias Abdul Rehman received fire‑arm injuries and fell down. His other companion Javed received injuries on his head while he was resisting his arrest. Their third companion Abdul Hannan was also arrested by the police. P. W . Abdul Razzak and other Mohalla people also received injuries during the course of the arrest of culprits. On enquiry the culprits disclosed that their fourth companion was Anwar, who was standing outside the house but he made his escape good. Two pistols, loaded with magazines, were recovered from the possession of accused Rahim and Javed.

3. After usual investigation applicant/accused was sent up to stand trial. The applicant/accused applied for bail before the trail Court but the same was refused by impugned order, dated 12‑1‑1999.

4. I have heard Syed Saeed Hassan Zaidi, learned counsel for the applicant/accused and Mr. Muhammad Saleh Punhwar, learned counsel on behalf of A.‑G. for the State. Latter conceded to the grant of bail.

5. The contention of the learned counsel that applicant/ accused was empty handed at the time of incident and that the complainant party has not received serious injuries; that upon evaluation of material the offence under section 452 is made out which is punishable with 7 years and fine, therefore, applicant/accused is entitled to bail and further that the case is outcome of enmity are misconceived.

6. The perusal of record shows that during broad daylight applicant/accused barged into the house of complainant alongwith his companions, who were armed with lethal weapons in order to cause hurt. It was the sheer luck of the complainant that Mohallah people and the police party reached at the spot. There was an encounter between the culprits and police party. The applicant/ accused was apprehended at the spot. Four private Mohallah people in their statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. have fully implicated the applicant/ accused. It is not borne out from the record nor any material has been placed on record by the applicant/accused from which it could be deduced that the case is outcome of enmity. Solitary word of the applicant/accused cannot be termed as proof of his contention. It is well‑settled that the deeper appreciation or evaluation of material at the stage of bail is not permissible for the grant or refusal of bail. Only tentative assessment is to be made.

7. It is not a universally accepted rule of law that in each and every case which is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years, bail must be granted. The Superior Courts time and again have laid down that in non‑bailable offences grant of bail is not a right but a concession/grace.

8. Prima facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that applicant/accused is guilty of the offence and his case is covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the applicant/accused as well as the Advocate for A.‑G., Sindh. This bail application is consequently dismissed.

9. The observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the trial Court will not be influenced thereby in any manner at the time of final decision of the case and it will be free to conclude it and arrive at its own independent findings after evaluating evidence recorded in the case at the stage of trial. N.H.Q./A‑302/K Bail refused.