Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD FAYAZ VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Maqbool Ahmed AwanMirza Sarfraz Ahmed,Rehan Akhtar
2010 Y L R 673
2010 Y L R 673
[Karachi]
Before Maqbool Ahmed Awan, J
MUHAMMAD FAYAZ---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.673 of 2009, decided on 29th June, 2009.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/353/186/34---Attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd and assault or criminal force to deter public servant front discharging of his duty---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was apprehended by the Police at the spot along with T. T. pistol and magazine containing two bullets---No person from Police party sustained any injury in the encounter---Was yet to be seen whether accused had received injury at the hands of Police; and whether the incident of encounter between the Police party and accused party took place in the manner as claimed by the Police---No objection was raised by Additional Prose cutor-General to grant of bail to accused---Accused had made out a case for grant of bail as envisaged under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed for the Applicant.
Rehan Akhtar, Addl. P.-G. for Respondent.
ORDER
MAQBOOL AHMED AWAN, J.--The applicant, facing trial in the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West, applied for grant of bail in Crime No.18 of 2009 for offence punishable under sections 324/353/186/34, P.P.C. of Police Station Site.
Precisely, the facts leading to this application are that complainant HC Sher Zaman on 9-3-2009 at .330 hours with his subordinate staff was on patrolling duty. During the course of patrolling, he saw Mazda Truck No. JY-1595, loaded with iron, plates, was coming from the opposite side. It is also alleged that 7/8 persons were also available in the side truck. The complainant party given signal to stop the truck but the driver of the side truck tried to make escape good and other culprits started firing on the police party and the police party in their defence also fired upon the culprits. It is further alleged that one of the culprits sustained bullets injury and was apprehended and on inquiry disclosed his name as Fayyaz and from his personal search on TT pistol with two bullets were recovered.
Complainant brought the accused person and property at police station where he lodged F.I.R. on behalf of the State.
Mr. Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely involved by the police in order to save themselves from the damage caused to the motorcycle and injury to the accused person who was apprehended at the spot. Learned counsel has further argued that the firing between the police party and culprits took place for sufficient time yet only two empties were recovered from the place of Wardat, which creates doubt whether the incident has taken place in the manner, as claimed by the police or not. He has further argued that the police has committed violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. by not joining independent person as Mashir of recovery of arrest, therefore, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.
Conversely Ms. Rehana Akhtar, Additional Prosecutor-General has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available in the case file.
Admittedly, the applicant was apprehended by the police at the spot along with TT pistol and magazine containing two bullets. No person from police party sustained any injury in the encounter. It is yet to be seen whether the applicant had received injury at the hands of police and whether the incident of encounter between the police party and the applicant party took place in the manner as claimed by the police.
In view of the above as well as no objection raised by the learned Additional Prosecutor-General. I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail as envisaged under sub-clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly I have directed by a short order dated 29-6-2009 that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) and PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and these are the reasons of my short order.
H.B.T./M-177/K Bail granted.